He'll cut taxes for the rich.. hurray, we always wanted to be one of those.. Hopefully we all become relatively rich in the 4 years he's in office

If a person is no where near rich, then it wouldn't matter who they voted for, because neither candidates will do anything for the poor, when has any candidate really responded to the needs of the many.. don't be so optimistic..

At the very least, I really do believe him, when he says, we're going to bring some jobs back to america..

If you visualize, trump as president, it's certainly possible that America's credit tanks a bit, that's good in a way, if we're talking about exports..

If our exports become cheaper, that's one sure way to bring production back home.

If Trump gets voted into office, they will have to get him tone him down a bit, especially the after-hours twitter stuff haha. I like that he isn't so PC, but he still needs to take a chill pill sometimes.

As far as taxes, the poor are already taxed at a very low rate, but his plan (has to be approved) would mean that people making under 25k a year pay zero.Hillary called it 'Trump Trickledown Economics" when he suggested lowering the corporate tax rate, but America has the second highest in the world. Trump knows a thing or two (good or bad) about corporate taxes and is a big reason why also I think that he can bring jobs to America.

The next president will potentially have the power to appoint several Supreme Court justices, that is something I don't want the Clinton in charge of but regardless, there are 3 branches of government for a reason

Will he build the wall? Maybe, but I like the fact Trump will be tough on immigration. As much as I would like to, America cannot save the world in this regard.

While he probably has done some shady stuff, there is no comparison to the Clinton Foundation and all the leaked information that has come forward in the past few weeks. Foreign leaders of Middle-Eastern countries have donated millions to her foundation and not to mention favors for those on Wall Street.

I don't think he is the Second Coming or anything, the bottom line is that Trump better meets my criteria on the big issues than Hillary.

Unlike every thinking man in the Western world outside the USA, Trump does not believe in global warming. He would tear up the Paris treaty... setting back progress ten years. The Paris treaty needs USA to be in to be effective. Not that the treaty was very effective to begin with, requiring only the bare minimum which would satisfy only the most optimistic scenario.

No prominent world leader wants to be associated with Trump. They have too much integrity for that. USA would have little to no political influence in the world - that is not leveraged with military force. That does not bode well.

In the newspaper I read today, I read that a financial institute had calculated that if Trump would win then USA would be in for a long recession much worse than the 2008 financial crisis.

In other words. Trump would be a global catastrophe.Mass unemployment. In twenty-thirty years, parts of southern/central USA would be uninhabitable.Goodbye cheap coffee. Goodbye affordable chocolate. Everyone would have to eat ramen. (...)Wall against Mexico - what would that help? You are kidding yourself if you think Mexico would be paying a cent for that. More likely, Mexicans in USA would want to move back as soon as the US economy shows signs of weakness (something that the Trump administration probably would spin somehow). USA would invade a South or Central American country to steal their natural resources as a short-term fix for a shortage back home but unlike US' previous wars of conquest this century, people would distrust the propaganda from the spin doctors and morale would be at the bottom.In a hundred years because of sea-level rise, many coastal towns such as Miami and New Orleans would be no more.

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me, but on subject he is better than hillary. Atleast he doesn't want to start a war with Russia. And I think that four years with him might not actually have that much to say. He will likely be controlled by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing, and he knows a thing or two about economics.

Unlike every thinking man in the Western world outside the USA, Trump does not believe in global warming. He would tear up the Paris treaty... setting back progress ten years. The Paris treaty needs USA to be in to be effective. Not that the treaty was very effective to begin with, requiring only the bare minimum which would satisfy only the most optimistic scenario.

No prominent world leader wants to be associated with Trump. They have too much integrity for that. USA would have little to no political influence in the world - that is not leveraged with military force. That does not bode well.

In the newspaper I read today, I read that a financial institute had calculated that if Trump would win then USA would be in for a long recession much worse than the 2008 financial crisis.

In other words. Trump would be a global catastrophe.Mass unemployment. In twenty-thirty years, parts of southern/central USA would be uninhabitable.Goodbye cheap coffee. Goodbye affordable chocolate. Everyone would have to eat ramen. (...)Wall against Mexico - what would that help? You are kidding yourself if you think Mexico would be paying a cent for that. More likely, Mexicans in USA would want to move back as soon as the US economy shows signs of weakness (something that the Trump administration probably would spin somehow). USA would invade a South or Central American country to steal their natural resources as a short-term fix for a shortage back home but unlike US' previous wars of conquest this century, people would distrust the propaganda from the spin doctors and morale would be at the bottom.In a hundred years because of sea-level rise, many coastal towns such as Miami and New Orleans would be no more.

Global warming is a community issue.. No one especially not America is willing to fight the fight..

Has anyone stopped driving big cars.. Has anyone stopped buying into the suburbs when they get some cash.. Has anyone ordered less rubbish on amazon.com..

So you see.. the fight on global warming had been a dud from the beginning from the American Perspective..

-- Prominent world leader associate with Trump.. How does this even matter.. America speaks Dollars, that language is universal.. Take it or leave it..

-- People seem to think, Recessions are always bad.. The truth is, the GROWTH of money is actually just inflation.. America has Not truly grown in any productive capacity since the early 2000s..

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me, but on subject he is better than hillary. Atleast he doesn't want to start a war with Russia. And I think that four years with him might not actually have that much to say. He will likely be controlled by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing, and he knows a thing or two about economics.

Probably because or third parties are often more bat**** crazy. That and, for some unknown reason, we have created super parties that do not have more unified beliefs. Our Democratic and Republican parties have enough differing beliefs that we could easily split each of them into at least three or four parties, kind of like most of the rest if the world does.

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me, but on subject he is better than hillary. Atleast he doesn't want to start a war with Russia. And I think that four years with him might not actually have that much to say. He will likely be controlled by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing, and he knows a thing or two about economics.

There is so much stupid in this thread (everything that is bad is actually good!) that I'm hesitant to give an actual answer, but here it goes.

Every elected government in the world is eventually made up from two parties. In European Parliamentary systems (which are what most Americans look at when complaining about the us process) there are many parties, but after the election if there is not a majority party there is deal making and compromise made to create a coalition government. In the United States two party system, the brokering of these deals happens before the election. It is incorrect to think of the Democratic or Republican Party as a monolithic party made up of people with narrow interests. They are best thought of as coalitions of groups with some similar interests, and compromise is made to form a platform. This coalition building happens at the primary stage. So if you sat around not paying attention until the general election and wonder why you don't have choices you like, you already missed the boat. If you want to enact real change in the way that people have access to make change in government through voting, you need to work towards primary reform, not the destruction of a two party system. Things like winner take all primaries, caucuses, closed primaries, and other tools are the bigger problem.

Going further, you can see the failures of the GOP in building an effective coalition this election during the primary stage. Some of this was due to bad leadership, some of it is due to bad primary rules. Since Goldwater nearly burnt the whole thing down, the Republican Party has been a coalition of the small government/personal liberty crowd, the strong national defense crowd, the fiscal conservatives, and the social conservatives. As you can see, some of these are in opposition to each other (social conservative vs personal liberty). In the year's gop primary, you could see different candidates with different priorities and the big failure of the party was never seeking to build any kind of coalition. In fact, everyone was happy to fracture the party further to make their own inflexible stand.

Which does bring us to how Trump fits into all of this. If you look at the rough groups above, which one is he? He's not a small government proponent, not a social conservative, a little for liberties but not that either, not a proponent of a large military reach, and he sure as hell isn't a fiscal conservative. It turns out I didn't list one major group: the white nationalist vote. The GOP for years didn't want to talk about this, and explicitly stated in the 2012 election post-mortem that they needed to pivot away from being the party of white nationalism. It turns out that racism and xeophobia runs deep, and Trump's support is built mostly on white males with limited education and isolationist and exclusionary ideals, and that group is much, much bigger than many had anticipated.

But don't take my word for it, Shakespeare said it all before. If you're complicit in this tragedy, which kind of voter are you? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/shakespeare-explains-the-2016-election.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&_r=0&referer=

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me, but on subject he is better than hillary. Atleast he doesn't want to start a war with Russia. And I think that four years with him might not actually have that much to say. He will likely be controlled by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing, and he knows a thing or two about economics.

There is so much stupid in this thread (everything that is bad is actually good!) that I'm hesitant to give an actual answer, but here it goes.

Every elected government in the world is eventually made up from two parties. In European Parliamentary systems (which are what most Americans look at when complaining about the us process) there are many parties, but after the election if there is not a majority party there is deal making and compromise made to create a coalition government. In the United States two party system, the brokering of these deals happens before the election. It is incorrect to think of the Democratic or Republican Party as a monolithic party made up of people with narrow interests. They are best thought of as coalitions of groups with some similar interests, and compromise is made to form a platform. This coalition building happens at the primary stage. So if you sat around not paying attention until the general election and wonder why you don't have choices you like, you already missed the boat. If you want to enact real change in the way that people have access to make change in government through voting, you need to work towards primary reform, not the destruction of a two party system. Things like winner take all primaries, caucuses, closed primaries, and other tools are the bigger problem.

Going further, you can see the failures of the GOP in building an effective coalition this election during the primary stage. Some of this was due to bad leadership, some of it is due to bad primary rules. Since Goldwater nearly burnt the whole thing down, the Republican Party has been a coalition of the small government/personal liberty crowd, the strong national defense crowd, the fiscal conservatives, and the social conservatives. As you can see, some of these are in opposition to each other (social conservative vs personal liberty). In the year's gop primary, you could see different candidates with different priorities and the big failure of the party was never seeking to build any kind of coalition. In fact, everyone was happy to fracture the party further to make their own inflexible stand.

Which does bring us to how Trump fits into all of this. If you look at the rough groups above, which one is he? He's not a small government proponent, not a social conservative, a little for liberties but not that either, not a proponent of a large military reach, and he sure as hell isn't a fiscal conservative. It turns out I didn't list one major group: the white nationalist vote. The GOP for years didn't want to talk about this, and explicitly stated in the 2012 election post-mortem that they needed to pivot away from being the party of white nationalism. It turns out that racism and xeophobia runs deep, and Trump's support is built mostly on white males with limited education and isolationist and exclusionary ideals, and that group is much, much bigger than many had anticipated.

But don't take my word for it, Shakespeare said it all before. If you're complicit in this tragedy, which kind of voter are you? http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/shakespeare-explains-the-2016-election.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&_r=0&referer=

I don't understand why you guys are so concerned about democratic ideals or political ideology.

If you are not RICH, none of those things matter or affect you enough.. And true political efficacy is not at the polls, rather it's traded on wallstreet..

If you even have the time to talk about those things.. you're likely too poor to do anything about them.. The right of way is always PAID for, never by intellect or discussion.

I can't help but think that we've been bullied into making one of two bad choices: by the early Republican Trump supporters who allowed him the foothold to climb over better candidates, and Democrat insiders who had already anointed Clinton in the DNC before the primaries. I will reluctantly vote for Trump though it sickens me. My reasons are threefold, two policy related and one visceral.

First, I think it's an effrontery to the Constitution to appoint judges to the SCOTUS who think it's their duty to act as lawmakers. That is the job of the Legislature not activist judges of either ideology. Roe v Wade and the recent Affordable Healthcare decisions are examples of making law under the guise of interpretation and will never be accepted by the whole population because it was legislated by the bench and not by the people. Trump favors the appointment of judges who will interpret the founding documents, not make law.

Second, I'm not comfortable with forfeiting our ranking as a prominent country to be one voice of many in a global government. Whether it's borderless countries or loss of autonomy in world affairs, it's a cheap concession for a country with little to offer and even less to lose. Not so for the US. I'm not blind about the need to adapt and work together but some of the globalist talk I read about is quite unsettling.

And finally, I personally find Mrs. Clinton to be a less than inspiring sight. Some will call me sexist but they'd be mistaken. It's not that she's a woman but rather her style; the way she presents herself. I find little to be inspired by. She cackles when she laughs, her loud rallying shouts appear to be fake or at least forced, and when she is triumphant I just want to wipe that smug look off of her face. You may say I'm being petty but appearance is part of the package that makes a leader. I won't even go into ethical charges levied against her; the same could be said against Trump.

We have two flawed candidates to choose from. In some ways whichever one wins, we still lose. I hope that whoever does, they find that we will be able to at least give them a chance and not try to sabotage their efforts to improve our nation. I would encourage you to read an article I wrote several weeks ago that speaks to this issue.https://kurplopintheshop.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/blog-post-title/

I can't help but think that we've been bullied into making one of two bad choices: by the early Republican Trump supporters who allowed him the foothold to climb over better candidates, and Democrat insiders who had already anointed Clinton in the DNC before the primaries. I will reluctantly vote for Trump though it sickens me. My reasons are threefold, two policy related and one visceral.

First, I think it's an effrontery to the Constitution to appoint judges to the SCOTUS who think it's their duty to act as lawmakers. That is the job of the Legislature not activist judges of either ideology. Roe v Wade and the recent Affordable Healthcare decisions are examples of making law under the guise of interpretation and will never be accepted by the whole population because it was legislated by the bench and not by the people. Trump favors the appointment of judges who will interpret the founding documents, not make law.

Second, I'm not comfortable with forfeiting our ranking as a prominent country to be one voice of many in a global government. Whether it's borderless countries or loss of autonomy in world affairs, it's a cheap concession for a country with little to offer and even less to lose. Not so for the US. I'm not blind about the need to adapt and work together but some of the globalist talk I read about is quite unsettling.

And finally, I personally find Mrs. Clinton to be a less than inspiring sight. Some will call me sexist but they'd be mistaken. It's not that she's a woman but rather her style; the way she presents herself. I find little to be inspired by. She cackles when she laughs, her loud rallying shouts appear to be fake or at least forced, and when she is triumphant I just want to wipe that smug look off of her face. You may say I'm being petty but appearance is part of the package that makes a leader. I won't even go into ethical charges levied against her; the same could be said against Trump.

We have two flawed candidates to choose from. In some ways whichever one wins, we still lose. I hope that whoever does, they find that we will be able to at least give them a chance and not try to sabotage their efforts to improve our nation. I would encourage you to read an article I wrote several weeks ago that speaks to this issue.https://kurplopintheshop.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/blog-post-title/

The other conspiracy theory is,

Clinton is actually so powerful, that She was the one who put Trump next to herself ON PURPOSE, to ensure that she wins..

All the more reason to vote Trump. Let's see what happens..

Buhhh.... on the equality side.

If there was going to be a woman president, No one else is even close, and they won't be close for a very long time..

So...... if we're ever going to get one.. it's going to be her.. ... in that way, probably this inner guilt that the republic of male all somewhat share, is at least assuaged..

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me, but on subject he is better than hillary. Atleast he doesn't want to start a war with Russia. And I think that four years with him might not actually have that much to say. He will likely be controlled by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing, and he knows a thing or two about economics.

Probably because or third parties are often more bat**** crazy. That and, for some unknown reason, we have created super parties that do not have more unified beliefs. Our Democratic and Republican parties have enough differing beliefs that we could easily split each of them into at least three or four parties, kind of like most of the rest if the world does.

See dancing at the 2016 Libertarian convention. I would have voted for Ron Paul in a second in he was on the ballot.

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me, but on subject he is better than hillary. Atleast he doesn't want to start a war with Russia. And I think that four years with him might not actually have that much to say. He will likely be controlled by someone who knows a bit more about what they are doing, and he knows a thing or two about economics.

Probably because or third parties are often more bat**** crazy. That and, for some unknown reason, we have created super parties that do not have more unified beliefs. Our Democratic and Republican parties have enough differing beliefs that we could easily split each of them into at least three or four parties, kind of like most of the rest if the world does.

See dancing at the 2016 Libertarian convention. I would have voted for Ron Paul in a second in he was on the ballot.

First, I think it's an effrontery to the Constitution to appoint judges to the SCOTUS who think it's their duty to act as lawmakers. That is the job of the Legislature not activist judges of either ideology. Roe v Wade and the recent Affordable Healthcare decisions are examples of making law under the guise of interpretation and will never be accepted by the whole population because it was legislated by the bench and not by the people. Trump favors the appointment of judges who will interpret the founding documents, not make law.

You assume that judges like Scalia did not do the same. I hate the "lawmaker" judge argument since the judges are not acting in that manner, they are treating the Constitution like a living document and make judgement based upon the changing times. The other side believes that the Constitution is a document stuck in concrete. Conservative judges are willing to reinterpret the Constitution however they want to until it's something they mostly object to, like gay marriage. You see the same BS within the Christian right. The Bible is a living document until they decide there's a group worthy of their hate. The Bible condemns mixing fabrics, women teaching, women being in church with their heads uncovered, makeup, tattoos, divorce, and so on, but those are all okay because the Bible is a living document.

If Congress disagrees with a court ruling, it is their duty to pass laws to correct the perceived deficiency. I'd purple disagree, it is their duty to let their representative know and, of necessary, begin the process to add amendments. The court is there to interpret the Constitution. That does not mean I agree with all their rulings, but I do not see them as activists.

And how can you be so concerned about the Supreme Court when Trump had actively started that he wants to abridge and trample our Constitutional rights, starting with the First Amendment.

It's interesting to learn how people justify their vote for Trump and delude themselves into thinking that he is actually focused on anything but himself. The main reason that individuals are interested in voting for Trump seems to be that he is not Clinton and we would be worse off under Clinton.

And please, attack me for not holding Hillary to the same standard. But she has shown that she is willing to listen to advisers, learn from experience, work together with various parties, use all that to make decisions and try to address problems, and take years of constant criticism like a champ. While egotistical and power hungry. Trump hasn't done any of that, and will serve himself above all.

I can't help but think that we've been bullied into making one of two bad choices: by the early Republican Trump supporters who allowed him the foothold to climb over better candidates, and Democrat insiders who had already anointed Clinton in the DNC before the primaries.

There is no good choice, here. Just choices and less bad choices. Orange Hitler, or Grandma Nixon.

It's interesting to learn how people justify their vote for Trump and delude themselves into thinking that he is actually focused on anything but himself. The main reason that individuals are interested in voting for Trump seems to be that he is not Clinton and we would be worse off under Clinton.

And please, attack me for not holding Hillary to the same standard. But she has shown that she is willing to listen to advisers, learn from experience, work together with various parties, use all that to make decisions and try to address problems, and take years of constant criticism like a champ. While egotistical and power hungry. Trump hasn't done any of that, and will serve himself above all.

There's no delusion.. Everyone helps themselves.. you don't get to be president by helping others.. if anything Being president requires the most selfish person in the world. What other person can actually hold onto a position like that..

In that regard, hillary and trump are equally selfish..

That's fine..

Selfishness is not a bad thing, it's a necessity when the game is power..

People like to trash on Trumps experience.. people continously over-estimate the actual job of a president, they're the head of decision making, but they don't come up with the options..

The options presented to the decision maker are all well researched and vetted for major catastrophes,

Can bad things still happen, sure they can, but overall, the choice of candidate does not alter the risk greatly.

I still wonder as to whether or not someone paid Trump to run. I'm a little worried what will happen with global relations after this presidency regardless of who wins--although my gut feeling says we'll do just fine with Hillary as president. Some countries might be hesitant to shake hands but I think a potential post-Trump USA would have more security issues to deal with in the long haul.

I'm not even a third party supporter--I'm one of them Independent aliens of the underworld.

I still wonder as to whether or not someone paid Trump to run. I'm a little worried what will happen with global relations after this presidency regardless of who wins--although my gut feeling says we'll do just fine with Hillary as president. Some countries might be hesitant to shake hands but I think a potential post-Trump USA would have more security issues to deal with in the long haul.

I'm not even a third party supporter--I'm one of them Independent aliens of the underworld.

I honestly feel like they picked Trump to run because he made other candidates look more sane and reasonable, then it backfired horrifically on the Republican Party officials because they didn't realize how Tea Party/Birther/irrational a larger portion of their base has become.

Honestly, I would vote Bush (sans Cheney who scares the hell out of me) into office again over Hillary or Trump. That's how terrible I feel the two choices are. I wouldn't go so far as to vote for Reagan or Kennedy, but I could definitely vote for Bush again.

You assume that judges like Scalia did not do the same. I hate the "lawmaker" judge argument since the judges are not acting in that manner, they are treating the Constitution like a living document and make judgement based upon the changing times. The other side believes that the Constitution is a document stuck in concrete. Conservative judges are willing to reinterpret the Constitution however they want to until it's something they mostly object to, like gay marriage. You see the same BS within the Christian right. The Bible is a living document until they decide there's a group worthy of their hate. The Bible condemns mixing fabrics, women teaching, women being in church with their heads uncovered, makeup, tattoos, divorce, and so on, but those are all okay because the Bible is a living document.

You're probably right that conservative judges do the same. I probably don't notice it because it isn't called to my attention. We don't tend to notice our weeds spreading into the neighbors yard, only the opposite. That leaves me with the less pure but still legitimate point that I would prefer judges that best represent my worldview.

As for what you call the BS within the Christian right: The simple minded have simple answers and see things as black and white . As we grow and learn we discover the complexity of things, that one size doesn't fit all and our simple pat answers don't necessarily apply in situations we're not familiar with. I could defend church doctrine, explain how Christ fulfilled the law and point by point offer solid explanations for many of the issues you cited but I don't think that was your dominant concern. I think the real point of contention is who has the job of interpreting the rules and who has the job of amending them and how we make the distinction between the two.

If Congress disagrees with a court ruling, it is their duty to pass laws to correct the perceived deficiency. I'd purple disagree, it is their duty to let their representative know and, of necessary, begin the process to add amendments. The court is there to interpret the Constitution. That does not mean I agree with all their rulings, but I do not see them as activists.

Isn't that a bit like putting the cart before the horse? Something is wrong, interpret (stretch, change) the law to better work, then have Congress draft a new law that nullifies the one the Court issued; a lengthy process. Wouldn't it be better to refer the case to Congress to deal with?I can see the temptation the court has to try to quickly fix what's broken but I think they occasionallyoverstep their authority. What ever happened to the balance of power?

And how can you be so concerned about the Supreme Court when Trump had actively started that he wants to abridge and trample our Constitutional rights, starting with the First Amendment.

It's simple. Trump speaks in almost constant hyperbole. As a person who has a love for words, I am constantly offended by his language. I think I heard it put best by Farid Zacharias when he said that Trump isn't a liar, he's a bull****er. We learn that it's necessary to reinterpret most of what he says but it's not too difficult because what he says is so implausible we can't take it for face value. For example, "We're building a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it." means " We are going to take the unlawful immigration problem seriously". I know, it is unthinkable that he made it this far, but as bad as he is I still think the alternative is worse.

It's interesting to learn how people justify their vote for Trump and delude themselves into thinking that he is actually focused on anything but himself. The main reason that individuals are interested in voting for Trump seems to be that he is not Clinton and we would be worse off under Clinton.

And please, attack me for not holding Hillary to the same standard. But she has shown that she is willing to listen to advisers, learn from experience, work together with various parties, use all that to make decisions and try to address problems, and take years of constant criticism like a champ. While egotistical and power hungry. Trump hasn't done any of that, and will serve himself above all.

I'm not deluding myself. I do have a strong suspicion that Trump is focused primarily on himself. We do have to justify our positions and mine is that as bad a choice Trump is I think Clinton is a worse choice. Clinton is a much more skilled politician and that has both disadvantage and merit attached to it. I don't think either has demonstrated a standard of ethics worthy of the office. I more closely align myself to the positions Trump states. I question whether he will stick with them but I fear Clinton sticking to hers.

For years, both sides have been bickering, fighting, name-calling and accusing the other side of atrocities that a mirror would reveal in themselves. Trump and Clinton are the bastard offsprings of their illicit affair and now it's our unpleasant task to raise one of them. I admit that I'm voting for Trump mainly because he's not Clinton and am saddened by that.

Maybe many think that Trump's harsh words are mostly hot air. Don't be fooled by that. He is a total a-hole not just in words but in action as well.

Here is a documentary from 2011 about how he bulldozered and bullied locals in Scotland when he was building a luxury golf course there. It's a long documentary.

.Today, five years later, locals have still not got their running water restored after Trumps' workers had cut it off.

Trump had got special permission to destroy the protected coastline for his golf course because he had promised 6000 jobs. The result became 95 part-time low-pay jobs.

After this there was a petition to the parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003) in the UK to ban Trump from entry into the country. That petition gained far over half a million signatures - more signatures than any petition to the parliament before, but the government turned it down only because they did not find it legal to act in individual cases.

If you Americans elect him, then he will lie for you and destroy things for you as well and then try to excuse it by trashtalking you, just like he did in Aberdeenshire.

Maybe many think that Trump's harsh words are mostly hot air. Don't be fooled by that. He is a total a-hole in action as well.

Here is a documentary from 2011 about how he bulldozered and bullied locals in Scotland when he was building a luxury golf course there. It's a long documentary.

.Today, five years later, they have still not got their running water restored.

After this there was a petition to the parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003) in the UK to ban Trump from entry into the country. That petition gained far over half a million signatures - more signatures than any petition to the parliament before, but the government turned it down only because they did not find it legal to act in individual cases.

Trump will make America Great again...

Bullying is what America is best at.. .. and one fails to see why you guys are so upset about us winning.

That reminds me of discussions of the Iraq war back in the early naughties. USA and a couple of naive allies were invading Iraq to snatch their oil and install a puppet government. In one discussion we managed to persuade an American what it was really about, that it was a criminal act, not related to 9/11 at all and planned a long time ago.But even though he recognized the US aggression as criminal, against International law, he still persisted to defend his government's wrongful actions with: "To the victors go the spoils".

That reminds me of discussions of the Iraq war back in the early naughties. USA and a couple of naive allies were invading Iraq to snatch their oil and install a puppet government. In one discussion we managed to persuade an American what it was really about, that it was a criminal act, not related to 9/11 at all and planned a long time ago.But even though he recognized the US aggression as criminal, against International law, he still persisted to defend his government's wrongful actions with: "To the victors go the spoils".

Overall, the tenor of this is correct; there's a large element of the US population that thinks our might is always right. However, while the Iraq invasion was conducted poorly, there were valid reasons. At the time of 9/11 we had to make extra nice with Saudi Arabia because we maintained multiple bases there. We are finding out now that US officials knew at that time the Saudi government was complicit, but didn't want to go there publically (*this* was likely oil related, not Iraq...). So the public line was WMD and such, but we really, really had to get out of Saudi Arabia. If the USS Cole didn't prove it, and the khobar tower bombing didn't prove it, then the 9/11 attacks did.

So if we (and the coalition at PSAB included France and the UK, which were not naive here) had to leave, why not just go? Well, we had to enforce the no-fly zone from the first gulf war in the 90s. Had to stay as long as Saddam Hussein was in power. So why did we protect Kuwait? Then why did we install Hussein in Iraq, so why did we mess with the leadership of Iran....?

The point being is that the US has backed ourselves into some really bad situations with some overreach of power and rash decision making. I would point to how Obama isn't going all out in Syria as an example of enlightened restraint. I don't imagine enlightened restraint is even in trump's vocabulary...

However, while the Iraq invasion was conducted poorly, there were valid reasons.

Ends and means... Maybe it was one of several bugs to kill with one stone but I doubt that was the biggest reason.Most Americans are not aware of PNAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) and if they did they would be outraged. Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be springboards for invasions of Iran and Syria.The no-fly zone could probably have been upheld from Turkey and Kuwait.

Maybe many think that Trump's harsh words are mostly hot air. Don't be fooled by that. He is a total a-hole not just in words but in action as well.

Here is a documentary from 2011 about how he bulldozered and bullied locals in Scotland when he was building a luxury golf course there. It's a long documentary.

.Today, five years later, locals have still not got their running water restored after Trumps' workers had cut it off.

Trump had got special permission to destroy the protected coastline for his golf course because he had promised 6000 jobs. The result became 95 part-time low-pay jobs.

After this there was a petition to the parliament (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003) in the UK to ban Trump from entry into the country. That petition gained far over half a million signatures - more signatures than any petition to the parliament before, but the government turned it down only because they did not find it legal to act in individual cases.

If you Americans elect him, then he will lie for you and destroy things for you as well and then try to excuse it by trashtalking you, just like he did in Aberdeenshire.

However, while the Iraq invasion was conducted poorly, there were valid reasons.

Ends and means... Maybe it was one of several bugs to kill with one stone but I doubt that was the biggest reason.Most Americans are not aware of PNAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) and if they did they would be outraged. Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be springboards for invasions of Iran and Syria.The no-fly zone could probably have been upheld from Turkey and Kuwait.

Aware of PNAC, not outraged. There's a "think tank" for everything, they write lots of fancy open letters, and their influence is largely overstated (in concurrence with professor abelson). My comment was not to completely excuse the actions of the US, but only to state that even bad decisions are often more complex than "mah oil", "being winners" and so on.

The world is in a tenuous position right now. A proxy war amongs superpowers is teetering in the balance, and a nation in deep economic turmoil has invaded and annexed a peninsula of foreign territory. The historically inclined may recall the Spanish civil war and Japan's annexation of manchuria and what came after. It's no secret that the US is quietly setting up in Eastern Europe and the baltics ("exercises" mind you, not officially bases) . A little more secret (but still public) is how often contact is being made in the air and at sea as various nations test the boarders and the force available.

Above the question was asked "what could possibly happen?" and the answer is actually pretty dire. It's substantially more serious than many consider.

Most Americans are not aware of PNAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century) and if they did they would be outraged.

Bush Jr/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld and all of those cronies were limp twits who bought their ways out of going to 'Nam, and felt compelled to relive it since it was such a wonderful experience before. And because this time it looked like there was an actual prize to be won.

You could argue that Bill Clinton weaseled his way out, but Al Gore went, and John Kerry too.

The real sad thing here is that you lot are going to put into power a woman who consistently lies about doing stuff, then denies she is responsible for ever doing it ::) .

Nice to see that for some people we are held under a microscope but she walks away smiling and untouched from what she committed under Obama's watch. Remember that if you think that is fine for any future President to operate in that manner then don't come crying later when she starts something serious and the bodies start being shipped in body bags.

Just remember she will be there still denying any responsibility because it's in her DNA to constantly lie and dodge all questions asked, just see past behaviour as reference. As the Police always know, that it's a tendency of all sociopaths to always deny their culpability when caught.

Maybe that is the type of person you want to lead you into a 3rd WW but having someone totally out of touch with reality and it's consequences, will ultimately bring serious harm.

You poor Americans are stuck with voting for either a true Sociopath or a Misogynist, God help us ALL.

Thats why she would be a bad president, because she wants to Be President more so than doing the things presidents do.

TRUMP, on the otherhand.. hell his life is AWESOME from the standpoint of just living wealthy with nearly no responsibilities.

That is the type of person who can't be swayed by political pressure, because his answer to every squeeze is FFF off.. Don't care..

Trump will make a significantly better president simply because he has nothing to lose OR gain by becoming president..

He can continue to run his business but wouldn't his personal spending be dedicated to a presidential salary/expense account for the sake of national security? That might be a humbling experience for someone like Mr. Trump.

“Trump has shown that our message is healthy, normal and organic — and millions of Americans agree with us,” said Matthew M. Heimbach, a co-founder of the Traditionalist Youth Network, a white nationalist group that claims to support the interests of working-class whites. It also advocates the separation of the races.

And

Quote

But Mr. Heimbach added that he and other white nationalists were grateful to Mr. Trump for championing ideas they support.

“Trump has shown that our message is healthy, normal and organic — and millions of Americans agree with us,” said Matthew M. Heimbach, a co-founder of the Traditionalist Youth Network, a white nationalist group that claims to support the interests of working-class whites. It also advocates the separation of the races.

And

Quote

But Mr. Heimbach added that he and other white nationalists were grateful to Mr. Trump for championing ideas they support.

Go ahead, vote for the power hungry woman with no conscience, who cares more about foreigners than the safety of her own citizens, will force your country into disadvantageous economic globalism, who claims that only she understands the plight of the oppressed. What could possibly go wrong?

Go ahead, vote for the power hungry woman with no conscience, who cares more about foreigners than the safety of her own citizens, will force your country into disadvantageous economic globalism, who claims that only she understands the plight of the oppressed. What could possibly go wrong?

Indeed, he went bankrupt so many times I'm sure he'll know exactly how to by now!

I think it is a bit misleading to say he went bankrupt. Out of hundreds of ventures he filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, a restructuring tool that is very different from Chapter 7.

I also don't find the graphic saying he hates minorities to be true. Hillary panders to minority voters, hiring celebrities to perform at her rallies and in reality, she will do nothing for them once she gets their vote.

Indeed, he went bankrupt so many times I'm sure he'll know exactly how to by now!

I think it is a bit misleading to say he went bankrupt. Out of hundreds of ventures he filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, a restructuring tool that is very different from Chapter 7.

I also don't find the graphic saying he hates minorities to be true. Hillary panders to minority voters, hiring celebrities to perform at her rallies and in reality, she will do nothing for them once she gets their vote.

She doesn't want to build another Hadrian's Wall though. That alone is a +1 in my book.

Indeed, he went bankrupt so many times I'm sure he'll know exactly how to by now!

I think it is a bit misleading to say he went bankrupt. Out of hundreds of ventures he filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, a restructuring tool that is very different from Chapter 7.

I also don't find the graphic saying he hates minorities to be true. Hillary panders to minority voters, hiring celebrities to perform at her rallies and in reality, she will do nothing for them once she gets their vote.

She doesn't want to build another Hadrian's Wall though. That alone is a +1 in my book.

Indeed, he went bankrupt so many times I'm sure he'll know exactly how to by now!

I think it is a bit misleading to say he went bankrupt. Out of hundreds of ventures he filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, a restructuring tool that is very different from Chapter 7.

I also don't find the graphic saying he hates minorities to be true. Hillary panders to minority voters, hiring celebrities to perform at her rallies and in reality, she will do nothing for them once she gets their vote.

She doesn't want to build another Hadrian's Wall though. That alone is a +1 in my book.

Indeed, he went bankrupt so many times I'm sure he'll know exactly how to by now!

I think it is a bit misleading to say he went bankrupt. Out of hundreds of ventures he filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times, a restructuring tool that is very different from Chapter 7.

I also don't find the graphic saying he hates minorities to be true. Hillary panders to minority voters, hiring celebrities to perform at her rallies and in reality, she will do nothing for them once she gets their vote.

She doesn't want to build another Hadrian's Wall though. That alone is a +1 in my book.

As a European, do you have any insight on the 'wall' build on the Hungarian border?

Who knows if The Wall will be built or if it will even be financially feasible. Every candidate says stuff to win votes.

I don't think that illegal aliens should be granted immunity as it truly is unfair to those who try to do it the right way. My Cuban neighbor was granted asylum and it took quite some years to become a citizen as apposed to someone who sneaks in and gets an easy path to citizenship. People who enter the country illegally should not be allowed to vote and the current sanctuary city as well as catch-and-release policies are ridiculous.

I also am apprehensive to support the idea of allowing an influx of Syrian refugees into America, but his blanket TEMPORARY ban on Muslim immigration sounded silly. Proposing an halt to allowing in people countries with a 'history of terrorism' is a bit better.

As much as we would like to help the rest of the World, Americans should be put first.

This one is making the rounds on The Facebook of some of my German friends:

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/9ebdhdrf4tvx.jpg)

I'm from Germany and this wallpaper is complete garbage.We actually call Hillary "Hitlery". It is common sense, that such a corrupt, lying, dishonest and physically sick person is not able to run a country.You must be mental if you voted for Hillary.Sure, Trumps' views are sometimes a bit undiplomatic, but at least they are honest.

This one is making the rounds on The Facebook of some of my German friends:

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/9ebdhdrf4tvx.jpg)

I'm from Germany and this wallpaper is complete garbage.We actually call Hillary "Hitlery". It is common sense, that such a corrupt, lying, dishonest and physically sick person is not able to run a country.You must be mental if you voted for Hillary.Sure, Trumps' views are sometimes a bit undiplomatic, but at least they are honest.

This one is making the rounds on The Facebook of some of my German friends:

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/9ebdhdrf4tvx.jpg)

I'm from Germany and this wallpaper is complete garbage.We actually call Hillary "Hitlery". It is common sense, that such a corrupt, lying, dishonest and physically sick person is not able to run a country.You must be mental if you voted for Hillary.Sure, Trumps' views are sometimes a bit undiplomatic, but at least they are honest.

This one is making the rounds on The Facebook of some of my German friends:

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/9ebdhdrf4tvx.jpg)

I'm from Germany and this wallpaper is complete garbage.We actually call Hillary "Hitlery". It is common sense, that such a corrupt, lying, dishonest and physically sick person is not able to run a country.You must be mental if you voted for Hillary.Sure, Trumps' views are sometimes a bit undiplomatic, but at least they are honest.

Found the guy who's qualified to speak for all of Germany!

You're saying that poster/image speaks for all of Germany?

I'm not sure how you could possibly get that from what I posted.

Sorry strawman82

"-the people of Germany" I underlined it so you know to read it.

Apparently you're the one who is having trouble reading. Let me break it down for you.

Someone posts picture.

Someone else posts "Who are you, that you can speak for the people of Germany?" in response to the picture.

Then another person posts pretending to speak for all of Germany("We"), in opposition to the picture.

I post the chain to point out how funny it is that someone does that shortly after someone else is mocked for supposedly doing the same.

At no point in this have I said anything relating to the merits of the picture. So, yet again, I say sorry Mr. strawman82.

This one is making the rounds on The Facebook of some of my German friends:

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/9ebdhdrf4tvx.jpg)

I'm from Germany and this wallpaper is complete garbage.We actually call Hillary "Hitlery". It is common sense, that such a corrupt, lying, dishonest and physically sick person is not able to run a country.You must be mental if you voted for Hillary.Sure, Trumps' views are sometimes a bit undiplomatic, but at least they are honest.

I have to say, the number of /pol/ and r/the_donald denizens who *failed* to vote for trump because they can't be arsed to understand *how* to register and correctly vote is delicious. Mmmm. Sweet, sweet irony.

This is quite shocking to me. The way it's looking, he only need is Michigan win to get to 270. It bothers me when I hear people around me say their vote doesn't count. IN FLORIDA YOUR VOTE ALWAYS COUNTS.

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me

The US's voting system favors only the winning party. Many other countries have representative seats based on total votes so that third parties with only 5% or 10% votes will still a small amount of representation. Then those parties can work up and gain popularity later. In the US the third parties with 5% of the vote gets jack squat and never get off the ground - then everybody tows the mainstream party line so that they don't "waste a vote"

Why America doesn't get that they have third party candidates is beyond me

The US's voting system favors only the winning party. Many other countries have representative seats based on total votes so that third parties with only 5% or 10% votes will still a small amount of representation. Then those parties can work up and gain popularity later. In the US the third parties with 5% of the vote gets jack squat and never get off the ground - then everybody tows the mainstream party line so that they don't "waste a vote"

Not surprisingly, this election has had the highest amount of Third Party votes in 20 years.

I am genuinely disappointed in my country. It is difficult to fathom sharing the same space and value as many of my fellow citizens.A dark example of a joke taken too far. See, some people are too stupid to understand something is a joke and they run with it. After that it's all ashes.

No. So God help me, they spake not a wordBut, like dumb statues or breathing stones,Stared each on other and looked deadly pale;Which when I saw, I reprehended themAnd asked the mayor what meant this willful silence.His answer was, the people were not usedTo be spoke to but by the recorder.Then he was urged to tell my tale again:“Thus saith the duke. Thus hath the duke inferred”—But nothing spoke in warrant from himself.When he had done, some followers of mine own,At the lower end of the hall, hurled up their caps,And some ten voices cried “God save King Richard!”And thus I took the vantage of those few.“Thanks, gentle citizens and friends,” quoth I."This general applause and cheerful shoutArgues your wisdoms and your love to Richard"—And even here brake off, and came away.

No. So God help me, they spake not a wordBut, like dumb statues or breathing stones,Stared each on other and looked deadly pale;Which when I saw, I reprehended themAnd asked the mayor what meant this willful silence.His answer was, the people were not usedTo be spoke to but by the recorder.Then he was urged to tell my tale again:“Thus saith the duke. Thus hath the duke inferred”—But nothing spoke in warrant from himself.When he had done, some followers of mine own,At the lower end of the hall, hurled up their caps,And some ten voices cried “God save King Richard!”And thus I took the vantage of those few.“Thanks, gentle citizens and friends,” quoth I."This general applause and cheerful shoutArgues your wisdoms and your love to Richard"—And even here brake off, and came away.

The whole world loses. The biggest loser are the majority of the US citizens.

The only winners are a few extremely rich people who are backing Trump, who will benefit from Trump's tax cuts for the rich.Trump has no idea how to actually be a politician. He is a tool, was a tool and will always be a tool. This time, a tool for opportunists within the Republic party sphere behind the scenes who will grab the power vacuum created because Trump has no idea what the hell he is actually doing.

The dollar is already dropping rapidly. The stock markets are already in wild turmoil. I expect that this is just the start of a bigger economic crisis than the one in 2008. Mark my words ...

No. So God help me, they spake not a wordBut, like dumb statues or breathing stones,Stared each on other and looked deadly pale;Which when I saw, I reprehended themAnd asked the mayor what meant this willful silence.His answer was, the people were not usedTo be spoke to but by the recorder.Then he was urged to tell my tale again:“Thus saith the duke. Thus hath the duke inferred”—But nothing spoke in warrant from himself.When he had done, some followers of mine own,At the lower end of the hall, hurled up their caps,And some ten voices cried “God save King Richard!”And thus I took the vantage of those few.“Thanks, gentle citizens and friends,” quoth I."This general applause and cheerful shoutArgues your wisdoms and your love to Richard"—And even here brake off, and came away.

tl;dr

FTFY

Aye, this election summed up in two posts. "Here's something thought provoking to consider"

I think the loss rests squarely on the shoulders of the folks who run the DNC. Their party tried to push a dishonest candidate that was proven to have pushed to scales in her favour during the primaries and then did their best to alienate the people that didn't vote for Hillary during the election.

Obama ****ing crushed it. No scandles, always dapper, class all the way. It sucks that Obamacare will take healthcare away from millions of people who otherwise couldn't afford it.

Are you completely deluded in some way?

Obama is known the world over as the Assassination President whilst Bush was known as the Torture President (look it up).

Trust me sunshine, if you bothered to look at other media besides your own blinded/corrupt system Obama did more harm around the globe with his destruction of the Middle east and sponsoring terrorists too numerous to mention here and spending billions/trillions on conducting illegal regime changes around the world, the common folk delivered their decision to finally vote for someone that will stop funding the WAR Machine.

That alone will bring far more stability and of course re-introducing glass steagall to reign in the Wall Street Parasites, which were all protected under Obama (Hillary) and Co. Also hopefully, getting rid of sanctions which have all proven futile and useless that affects us all globally.

So just wait and see what will happen next but rest assured, Trump is not another YES man (like Obama was) for Wall Street and the War Machine, he is something quite unique in your Country's history.

Younger people don't want things to just be given to them ray, they want the chance that generations before them had. Younger generations are ****ed. There are no manufacturing jobs for them and the blue-collar work force is shrinking as jobs continue to be shipped overseas. Unskilled jobs and jobs that don't require a degree pay enough for high school students to have spending money and that's about it. Most end up feeling like their only option is to go to university since almost every job requires a college degree now. That degree costs them, on average $30k and, when they get it, they're lucky to get a job that pays $25-30k a year before taxes. Company loyalty doesn't exist anymore and management positions are overloaded with a work force that was supposed to retire years ago. Their only chance to make more money is to change jobs every 2-3 years. All the while, they scrap together barely enough to make it by and wonder if they'll ever be able to retire since they can't afford to start retirement planning. They look at the housing market and many find that they'll probably be renting their whole life because houses are way overpriced, bought by out of country investors and left vacant or to rent, or bought out of speculation to flip.

If you take a sincere look at younger generations, you'd realize how ****ing bleak things look. It's no wonder the calling for things to be different.

I'm not saying that there aren't entitled *******s in that group, but that there's a high degree of fatalism and wanting to at least have a chance when all they see is a hopeless future.

Younger people don't want things to just be given to them ray, they want the chance that generations before then had. Tinder generations are ****ed. There are no manufacturing jobs for them and the blue-collar work force is shrinking as jobs continue to be shipped overseas. Unskilled jobs and jobs that don't require a degree pay enough for high school students to have spending money and that's about it. Most end up feeling like their only option is to go to university since almost every job requires a college degree now. That degree costs them, on average $30k and, when they get it, they're lucky to get a job that pays $25-30k a year before taxes. Company loyalty doesn't exist anymore and management positions are overloaded with a work force that was supposed to retire years ago. Their only chance to make more money is to change jobs every 2-3 years. All the while, they scrap together barely enough to make it by and wonder if they'll ever be able to retire since they can't afford to start retirement planning. They look at the housing market and many find that they'll probably be renting their whole life because houses are way overpriced, bought by out of country investors and left vacant or to rent, or bought out of speculation to flip.

If you take a sincere look at younger generations, you'd realize how ****ing bleak things look. It's no wonder the calling for things to be different.

I'm not saying that there aren't entitled *******s in that group, but that there's a high degree of fatalism and wanting to at least have a chance when all they see is a hopeless future.

But this is the natural progression on the path of population contraction.. It's not Bleak in the sense that it could've happened any other way.. It's Bleak only in the sense that hey' we're over the golden age hump..

Take a look at Japan, they're much further into this trend than we are..

You always speak to extremes tp. I could just as easily state that we exist in a state of tacit slavery to corporate oligarchs kept in check with beer and circus and the misguided belief in the American dream.

You always speak to extremes tp. I could just as easily state that we exist in a state of tacit slavery to corporate oligarchs kept in check with beer and circus and the misguided belief in the American dream.

You misunderstand me then, I completely agree with the above statement..

I could just as easily state that we exist in a state of tacit slavery to corporate oligarchs kept in check with beer and circus and the misguided belief in the American dream.

I would agree with this.

The tragedy is that Trump is a circus performer whose interests align with the parasites who have bled the US dry for the past 35+ years, and his core of support is precisely that group of people who have been devastated by the process. How can they not recognize this obvious fact?

I could just as easily state that we exist in a state of tacit slavery to corporate oligarchs kept in check with beer and circus and the misguided belief in the American dream.

I would agree with this.

The tragedy is that Trump is a circus performer whose interests align with the parasites who have bled the US dry for the past 35+ years, and his core of support is precisely that group of people who have been devastated by the process. How can they not recognize this obvious fact?

Any Human-Being placed into the position of power and wealth behave identically..

So, ya'll old guys really need to stop perpetuating the incorrect notion that there 's a CHOICE involved here..

There is no evil or light..

There is no better system of organization , due to the flaws and shortcomings of humanity..

It is not a matter of individual will power or belief..

We can only ever envision the idealistic behaviors , but to truly put them into action is an affront to our core function as a survival machine..

Well, this ought to be fun. The last Republican president waged multiple illegal wars, publicly condoned torture and should be tried for crimes against humanity. That's a tough record to beat, but I believe Trump is well up to the job.

People see the less than --totally honest-- trades happen and call it a con.. But the reality is, since our economy only approximates real value, any loss sustained is merely the bursting of its own speculative bubble..

Now, with regards to people taking more than their fair share.. In the grand scheme, we're looking up.. but as far as leadership is concerned, Greed is the cost of organization, and a perpetual inefficiency so long as there are human operators.

Bernie would have beat Trump. And Trump did not get 60M votes, although he did come close.

So, basically, you can't think of even one single thing that will be better in the world because of this?

Neither can I.

close lol.

hahahaha..

Also, Bernie could've never beaten trump..

Bernie would've won the popular vote, But he FAILED the RICH MAN's VOTE..

Before you even get a shot at being voted on by --the little people-- You need to play ball with the Rich ..

THAT is why Bernie never had a chance, and could've NEVER been president..

:/ but it was the white working class rural population that won Trump the election. They greatly outnumber the amount of rich voters... Also the fact that both Bernie and Trump are anti-establishment (although in polarizing ways) made a lot of Bernie supporters switch to Trump rather than default to Clinton.

Also, Bernie won Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Kansas, Nebraska... if you were watching the election there's a couple states in there that were integral to Trump winning :P

Your comments are always hyperbolizing the situation with little to no context.

I'm not saying Bernie would have absolutely won. But it's definitely not a "he would NEVER win" thought exercise.

Bernie would have beat Trump. And Trump did not get 60M votes, although he did come close.

So, basically, you can't think of even one single thing that will be better in the world because of this?

Neither can I.

close lol.

hahahaha..

Also, Bernie could've never beaten trump..

Bernie would've won the popular vote, But he FAILED the RICH MAN's VOTE..

Before you even get a shot at being voted on by --the little people-- You need to play ball with the Rich ..

THAT is why Bernie never had a chance, and could've NEVER been president..

:/ but it was the white working class rural population that won Trump the election. They greatly outnumber the amount of rich voters... Also the fact that both Bernie and Trump are anti-establishment (although in polarizing ways) made a lot of Bernie supporters switch to Trump rather than default to Clinton.

Also, Bernie won Michigan, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Kansas, Nebraska... if you were watching the election there's a couple states in there that were integral to Trump winning :P

Your comments are always hyperbolizing the situation with little to no context.

I'm not saying Bernie would have absolutely won. But it's definitely not a "he would NEVER win" thought exercise.

Also, prior to last night, it was a mostly "he would NEVER win" prediction on Trump's behalf. This truly has been a historic election.

Clinton was the better candidate against any of the *other* Republicans, but Trump's strengths played directly to her weaknesses.

Bernie was straight-talking, well-liked by everyone, and squeaky-clean. He was the ideal one to pit against Trump.

I agree completely.

I just prefer not to speak in absolutes as if I know exactly what will happen in any given hypothetical situation. Especially not being as informed as I could be regarding the US political process and people.

Clinton was the better candidate against any of the *other* Republicans, but Trump's strengths played directly to her weaknesses.

Bernie was straight-talking, well-liked by everyone, and squeaky-clean. He was the ideal one to pit against Trump.

I agree completely.

I just prefer not to speak in absolutes as if I know exactly what will happen in any given hypothetical situation. Especially not being as informed as I could be regarding the US political process and people.

Rich men don't need a vote.. They , through a much more effective action called Campaign support (aka Bribery) purchase the right of way..

They don't have to bribe bernie, or hillary, or trump, in fact it's probably hard to do so.. but they're allowed to buy enough of the people AROUND the snake's head to capture the desired effect, compelling the final outcome..

No sure things, but their bets are much stronger than the popular vote.

Rich men don't need a vote.. They , through a much more effective action called Campaign support (aka Bribery) purchase the right of way..

They don't have to bribe bernie, or hillary, or trump, in fact it's probably hard to do so.. but they're allowed to buy enough of the people AROUND the snake's head to capture the desired effect, compelling the final outcome..

No sure things, but their bets are much stronger than the popular vote.

I'm sorry but what you are saying is just not accurate. Trump paid 63% less per electoral vote than Clinton... and it's the first time in a long time that the presidential candidate who spent the most money did not win. Campaign Support (AKA bribery) as per your definition should be used in an argument that Clinton should have won, if anything. Not the other way around.

Rich men don't need a vote.. They , through a much more effective action called Campaign support (aka Bribery) purchase the right of way..

They don't have to bribe bernie, or hillary, or trump, in fact it's probably hard to do so.. but they're allowed to buy enough of the people AROUND the snake's head to capture the desired effect, compelling the final outcome..

No sure things, but their bets are much stronger than the popular vote.

I'm sorry but what you are saying is just not accurate. Trump paid 63% less per electoral vote than Clinton... and it's the first time in a long time that the presidential candidate who spent the most money did not win. Campaign Support (AKA bribery) as per your definition should be used in an argument that Clinton should have won, if anything. Not the other way around.

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/1an5yis0blwx.jpg)

hahaha..

If you're assuming the capitalists only bribed ONE person, the candidate..

But that was not what I stated.

My point had been , that the wealthy Compels the result they desire through Appropriations towards the SYSTEM as a whole..

Rich men don't need a vote.. They , through a much more effective action called Campaign support (aka Bribery) purchase the right of way..

They don't have to bribe bernie, or hillary, or trump, in fact it's probably hard to do so.. but they're allowed to buy enough of the people AROUND the snake's head to capture the desired effect, compelling the final outcome..

No sure things, but their bets are much stronger than the popular vote.

I'm sorry but what you are saying is just not accurate. Trump paid 63% less per electoral vote than Clinton... and it's the first time in a long time that the presidential candidate who spent the most money did not win. Campaign Support (AKA bribery) as per your definition should be used in an argument that Clinton should have won, if anything. Not the other way around.

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/1an5yis0blwx.jpg)

hahaha..

If you're assuming the capitalists only bribed ONE person, the candidate..

But that was not what I stated.

My point had been , that the wealthy Compels the result they desire through Appropriations towards the SYSTEM as a whole..

I think I am starting to see where you're coming from, but boy is it hard to tease a clear and comprehensible comment out of you :P

It would be much stronger if you continued to supplement your arguments with facts following your number of ellipses.......

"Appropriations towards the system as a whole" is quite a broad statement - if you want to have an effect on changing my perspective in an argument it would be greatly beneficial if you followed up with some concrete examples of what you are suggesting!

Rich men don't need a vote.. They , through a much more effective action called Campaign support (aka Bribery) purchase the right of way..

They don't have to bribe bernie, or hillary, or trump, in fact it's probably hard to do so.. but they're allowed to buy enough of the people AROUND the snake's head to capture the desired effect, compelling the final outcome..

No sure things, but their bets are much stronger than the popular vote.

I'm sorry but what you are saying is just not accurate. Trump paid 63% less per electoral vote than Clinton... and it's the first time in a long time that the presidential candidate who spent the most money did not win. Campaign Support (AKA bribery) as per your definition should be used in an argument that Clinton should have won, if anything. Not the other way around.

Show Image

(https://i.redd.it/1an5yis0blwx.jpg)

hahaha..

If you're assuming the capitalists only bribed ONE person, the candidate..

But that was not what I stated.

My point had been , that the wealthy Compels the result they desire through Appropriations towards the SYSTEM as a whole..

I think I am starting to see where you're coming from, but boy is it hard to tease a clear and comprehensible comment out of you :P

It would be much stronger if you continued to supplement your arguments with facts following your number of ellipses.......

"Appropriations towards the system as a whole" is quite a broad statement - if you want to have an effect on changing my perspective in an argument it would be greatly beneficial if you followed up with some concrete examples of what you are suggesting!

Hahahahha..

I can not change your perspective if you are not already receptive to that change..

That is the identical dilemma facing all advertisement, be it political or consumer..

Money isn't the thing you eat, Money is the voice of humanity.. its greater accumulations represent an exchange and focusing of TRUST..

You and I give our trust to the businessman, buying what they sell, THEY in turn use that to buy whatever makes it easier for them to Deliver what We may continuously want to buy..

This chain is far more representative of the world, then the act of voting itself.. A vote means so little. The People having a vote in the first place was merely a compromise to make the sheep feel at ease about their leaders..

The founding fathers never truly believed that the goat herders could make any political decision so far out of his field of knowledge..

I can not change your perspective if you are not already receptive to that change..

That is the identical dilemma facing all advertisement, be it political or consumer..

Money isn't the thing you eat, Money is the voice of humanity.. its greater accumulations represent an exchange and focusing of TRUST..

You and I give our trust to the businessman, buying what they sell, THEY in turn use that to buy whatever makes it easier for them to Deliver what We may continuously want to buy..

This chain is far more representative of the world, then the act of voting itself.. A vote means so little. The People having a vote in the first place was merely a compromise to make the sheep feel at ease about their leaders..

I think my comment reflects that I am open to change, and I absolutely have changed my mind about many things throughout my life. It just takes more to change my opinion than simply someone else's opinion. I like to see facts, context, some sense of analysis. Best example I can provide is - if we were in an academic debating competition, there is a certain way of providing arguments that are more effective than others. Please don't assume that I'm closed minded just because I disagree with you sometimes.

And thanks for providing more information in your last post! Don't get me wrong...I don't feel like your ideas or arguments are "wrong" at all. It's just that you don't flesh them out enough for me to take them seriously (or even enough for me to fully comprehend what it is you are saying), if that makes any sense.

And I don't mean this offensively in any way, I hope you understand. I am a fan of constructive discourse. That's all :)

The numb shock is finally giving way to nervous apprehension and stomach queasiness.

I'm already doing some tasks the way I did then back when Bush was president. I'm no longer counting the number of times I press the trigger on the air freshener. WTF is happening :confused: My old dgaf habits are coming back

Berkeley Unified School District spokesman Charles Burress said about 1,500 Berkeley High School students participated in their protest that began around 8:20 a.m., just as classes were getting underway at the school at 1980 Allston Way.

OK. I read the first article and 3-4 articles it refers to and now I feel like a night-car driver at the end of a shift. It was painful. Since "Trump has connections to Russia" repeated in each paragraph wasn't useful to me, I searched for facts, and what I found:

1) In the past, Trump's campaign runner was helping a Russian oligarch, who may have links to organized crime;

2) Trump’s foreign policy advisor has business ties to a perfectly legal company in Russia;

3) Another Trump foreign policy advisor once ate at a Russia Today banquet;

4) There was a lawsuit that claimed that the business group Bayrock, underpinning Trump Soho was supported by criminal Russian financial interests, and Trump had no idea about that.

5) Somewhere (where?) Times reported that Bayrock is connected to an Israeli billionaire once charged in a corruption case involving fees paid by a Belgian company seeking business in Kazakhstan; that case was settled with no admission of guilt. What does it have to do will all this? Said billionaire holds a Kazakh citizenship, and for Times, apparently, Kazakhstan = Russia.

6) Bayrock’s finance chief alleged that a primary source of funding for Trump’s big projects with Bayrock arrived “magically” from sources in Russia and Kazakhstan.

7) When Trump built a tower in Panama, his clients were wealthy Russians.

8) Trump’s first real estate venture in Toronto, Canada, was a partnership with two Russian-Canadian entrepreneurs.

9) A number of years ago Trump bought a house in Palm Beach for $40 million and sold it to a Russian for $100 million including brokerage commissions.

Don't think I have one. Hard to imagine a US president being a person who often fails to make a sentence that makes sense. But at least he is not a feverish warmonger that is Clinton and his relaxed approach to Russia gives me hope that our nations will end this Cold War style nonsense and return to sane relations.

Berkeley Unified School District spokesman Charles Burress said about 1,500 Berkeley High School students participated in their protest that began around 8:20 a.m., just as classes were getting underway at the school at 1980 Allston Way.

Way back when the local school district swapped the school times of high school and middle school there were many students that walked out in protest. Something decided by board members made a change that effected them directly. I understand these students didn't like the outcome, but why protest something that was decided by then whole country? Nobody in their school system or even the state can change the result.

Don't think I have one. Hard to imagine a US president being a person who often fails to make a sentence that makes sense. But at least he is not a feverish warmonger that is Clinton and his relaxed approach to Russia gives me hope that our nations will end this Cold War style nonsense and return to sane relations.

I watched the Putin's press conference and the main thing I got out of it was that he sure wanted those sanctions lifted.

I watched the Putin's press conference and the main thing I got out of it was that he sure wanted those sanctions lifted.

Sanctions stifle FREE trade that America was so delighted about but now even during the so-called Globalisation effort it's far more restrictive than in the 1980's.

Free trade is exactly that, no more punishing and conducting wars upon people because Washington doesn't like who was elected in another country on the other side of the GLOBE. Time for America to finally grow up and do exactly what China has done, conduct business everywhere on every continent. Business that don't involve funding of heinous terrorist regimes or giving money/weapons to future ISIS monstrosities. They don't care who is in power or what your religion is all that matters is that you as an independent country sort out any political events all by yourselves.

To me China has shown far more maturity that the US has done for the past century.

Don't think I have one. Hard to imagine a US president being a person who often fails to make a sentence that makes sense. But at least he is not a feverish warmonger that is Clinton and his relaxed approach to Russia gives me hope that our nations will end this Cold War style nonsense and return to sane relations.

I have one and I am not a Russian backer nor a supporter in any way.

But I've seen where this was heading under the Democratic party, the demonisation of Russia and their people which was always promoted through all the mainstream media. The same procedure they had done on Iraq against Saddam and his people as well as against Gaddafi and we all know what happened next. Considering the US and it's Allies went into war against Iraq due to having so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction", remember that infamous line in all the media.

Although this time instead of highlighting basic facts that Russia actually has numerous world ending weapons at their disposal, the current regime under Obama ignored that vital fact, trying to take over Russia isn't going to be like Iraq or Libya. So I was more scared of the demented Obama Camp thinking they possibly win a nuclear war against Russia, no kidding they actually tried to create a situation in either Syria or Crimea to start this monumental catastrophe.

So in hindsite when all the Clinton supporters realised how close they were to losing everything, Trump is a far lesser evil than what has currently sat in the Whitehouse for more than 8 years. You will get future history written about this so pay attention to the facts that shall be listed, you will find how close you all were to the end.

Don't think I have one. Hard to imagine a US president being a person who often fails to make a sentence that makes sense. But at least he is not a feverish warmonger that is Clinton and his relaxed approach to Russia gives me hope that our nations will end this Cold War style nonsense and return to sane relations.

I have one and I am not a Russian backer nor a supporter in any way.

But I've seen where this was heading under the Democratic party, the demonisation of Russia and their people which was always promoted through all the mainstream media. The same procedure they had done on Iraq against Saddam and his people as well as against Gaddafi and we all know what happened next. Considering the US and it's Allies went into war against Iraq due to having so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction", remember that infamous line in all the media.

Although this time instead of highlighting basic facts that Russia actually has numerous world ending weapons at their disposal, the current regime under Obama ignored that vital fact, trying to take over Russia isn't going to be like Iraq or Libya. So I was more scared of the demented Obama Camp thinking they possibly win a nuclear war against Russia, no kidding they actually tried to create a situation in either Syria or Crimea to start this monumental catastrophe.

So in hindsite when all the Clinton supporters realised how close they were to losing everything, Trump is a far lesser evil than what has currently sat in the Whitehouse for more than 8 years. You will get future history written about this so pay attention to the facts that shall be listed, you will find how close you all were to the end.

wahhhhhhhhhh... hahahaha that's speculative ....

No one wins a nuclear war right ?

No country will go that far..

The pressure that Washington puts on the world is Always financial..

Even the little wars we start.. it is either designed to bankrupt our opponents directly, or the region which cause local financial political cascade..

Close to nuclear war... no way... humans are just not THAT stupid... that stuff gets everywhere and doesn't cleanup for 100 years. and the high yield probably 200-300 years..

Even the little wars we start.. it is either designed to bankrupt our opponents directly, or the region which cause local financial political cascade..

Close to nuclear war... no way... humans are just not THAT stupid... that stuff gets everywhere and doesn't cleanup for 100 years. and the high yield probably 200-300 years..

According to your mainstream media or your own belief system?

Step one, ISIS only developed under which President - Obama, the travesty and destruction in the Middle East after Bush's Iraq invasion, again Obama. Whole sale support via weapons and money again Obama, so your conclusion that YOU don't get involved with crimes against humanity doesn't hold here at all. Since all of these atrocities happened under Obama's watch and support it's nice to live in a fantasy world where destroying whole countries won't have any long term consequences for you.

Step Two - 9/11 was the prime example of the Saudi's paying their supporters to harm the US, Obama thought long and hard to stop publishing the investigation conducted by the FBI on who was truly responsible for that event. Obama even tried to ban US citizens from taking the Saudi's to court for compensation, yet the senate through out his disgusting veto and joined together (for the first time in years) to overthrow his objection.

Hence the US people got to see in full Obama's contempt of them by trying to cover up all the details of the 9/11 disaster. It clearly showed who was responsible with funding terrorists in this world and having the right to hold them responsible in a Court (very important). This is something Obama and his clown posse dreaded so much because if the Saudi's can be taken into court so can he be held responsible in the future by any nation who suffered under his rule.

Obama also funded a huge Drone System worth Billions of dollars from US citizen's, taxes funding his exploration into bombing people and villages throughout Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. He was so proud that he became the first President who openly cheered on the killing of various people on the globe that included whole families which included women and children, that never deterred him in any way.

Also Hillary went on her crusade of demonizing Russia and that Putin has to be stopped by taking back Crimea, she was quoted on many occasions repeating that very same statement. So now if she won you can bet loading up her ships to invade Crimea on Russia's doorstep wouldn't lead to a nuclear confrontation, where have you been living? This was on the brink like Cuba's Missile crisis and you lot didn't seem to care or know about it, hoping it was some kind of Steven Segal sad script or a another Schwarzenegger Epic?

Your main stream media continues to fill your world with the English Royals and Kardassian travesties but the REAL World knows what is going on, maybe we are not as blinded by your own media when it comes to knowing exactly what is happening around the globe these days.

And although I have no love for Russia whatsoever, and Putin in particular, it seems that the Crimea belongs to Russia at least as much as it belongs to Ukraine.

First your ignorance is truly astounding here.

Crimea was first annexed in 1783 – Crimea was absorbed by Russia and recognized the rights of the Russian nobility for all the noble families of the Khanate. Russia built the cities of Sevastopol as the center of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and Simferopol (1784) as the center of the Tauride province. Thanks to the Russian Tzar, nothing to do with the Communists in the future.

So by the time Crimea had been filled with Russians over that time period who loved their homeland and wanted to maintain that relationship with trade and cultural traditions. The Kiev Nazi's in 2014 being aided by the US Government (again Obama) to sponsor a break away republic is fine BUT they decided to destroy those on the Eastern edge of Ukraine, not allowing them to choose their own future. Notice all the bombing which has constantly been from the Western Side of Ukraine helps to illustrate the reality for those poor people suffering in the Donbass region.

So before you start embarrassing yourself with only listening to the CNN media releases, under stand what is happening there first before choosing sides. Ukraine wanted to choose their destiny BUT the Kiev Nazi's denied them that luxury and instead would rather destroy everyone in that region. Still happening now but your media thinks the trials and tribulations of the Kardassians is more important.Why the U.S. Government Aided a Coup Led by Neo-Nazis ... (http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-and-why-the-u-s-government-aided-a-coup-led-by-neo-nazis-in-ukraine/5371940)

the whole "not my President" thing.... ummm yes yes he is... in fairness you saw this with opponents of Obama certainly and probably every president....

I like to watch NHK world and every single day they have 1/2 dozen stories about people on Okinawa complaining about the U.S. bases.... so what do I see on NHK World today 3 minutes after turning it on??? People on Okinawa worrying and hand wringing over whether Trump would close some of the bases... as it would cost them customers...

Trump is exactly the stereotype the rest of the world has about Americans. This is like electing Mammy the head of the NAACP, it's just going to make us all look like orange boorish loud **** grabbing racist morons.

Trump is exactly the stereotype the rest of the world has about Americans. This is like electing Mammy the head of the NAACP, it's just going to make us all look like orange boorish loud **** grabbing racist morons.

I actually hold the oppisite steriotype in my mind.... the safespace dwelling millenial that cant handle opinions different to their own, but yell and scream in the name of non-traditional racist ideology

If you were a bernie supporter in the primaries but voted trump, I think you are a moron.

Trump stands against literally 99% of the things Sanders stood for, and yet someone votes for him purely on the fact of being anti establishment? That's complete nonsense.

You can't call your self a progressive if you vote for a man like Donald Trump, he is the antithesis of a progressive and a real danger to important supreme court rulings with his possible picks, that could be more than just one pick.

If you were a bernie supporter in the primaries but voted trump, I think you are a moron.

Trump stands against literally 99% of the things Sanders stood for, and yet someone votes for him purely on the fact of being anti establishment? That's complete nonsense.

You can't call your self a progressive if you vote for a man like Donald Trump, he is the antithesis of a progressive and a real danger to important supreme court rulings with his possible picks, that could be more than just one pick.

If you were a bernie supporter in the primaries but voted trump, I think you are a moron.

Trump stands against literally 99% of the things Sanders stood for, and yet someone votes for him purely on the fact of being anti establishment? That's complete nonsense.

You can't call your self a progressive if you vote for a man like Donald Trump, he is the antithesis of a progressive and a real danger to important supreme court rulings with his possible picks, that could be more than just one pick.

Kiss most of the groundwork of the ACA goodbye, that **** is gone.

I don't think anyone did that air tree.. hahahahahaha

I'm sure some did, maybe not a huge percentage, but some did. :rolleyes:

Everyone please remember that we are all entitled to a safe space and that words can hurt........... Tp looking at you.

Just the people here needing to vent especially those that worship Hillary ;D .

Only realized recently how much she (Clinton Clan) was hated within American society. She thought that she had 100% entitlement for being President but the people of the United States thought otherwise. In fact anyone who stood against her would of been chosen to be President not just Trump.

In the end she got what she deserved, the complete arrogant attitude of denying that anything was wrong within the American Dream, instead always paying others to promote her constantly 24/7 but she didn't bother to acknowledge that the poor located inside of America the ones who lost their jobs, the ones with no future whatsoever hence she got that quite predictable result. Remember when you deny someone an opportunity they will come back to deliver their vengeance which is a single vote. Millions combined together finished her chances for ever being President, it's as simple and as just as that.

Needless to say, I picked up my winnings today from my Bookie, it's a nice clean sweep so I'll be out on the town tonight raising a glass to Trumpie, the horse everyone swore would never win :thumb: .

I like how the same country that put Bill Clinton out of office because of Blowjobgate now elected a man who habitually performs sexual assault :/ .

Trump is doing EVERYTHING a successful man is suppose to be doing..

He's Promiscuous, (fff b*tches)

He's Ruthless, (heartless), (psychopathic), (make money)

ANd here, He came out ontop in the end..

--- The rest of us beta male population are just jelly--

All of these attributes are historically those found among the most powerful leaders (dictators)..

You're making my point very well :p . Remind me, how exactly is any of this an advantage? :p

And how are they disadvantages.. ALL leaders have these qualities..

Which King of old Didn't have a wife and 10 mistresses..

Which King of old DIDN"T kill a bunch of innocent people to get where he's at..

This is the way of Humans.. Not a shortcoming.. simply the cost of being a Ruler.. it's always , always been dastardly business.

I think the modern young guys, even some old ones, believe the world has changed, or is different than what it actually is, it's no sanctuary, it's a battlefield, there's no cuddling.. cuddling is what gets you killed..

I don't remember republicans protesting in the street either time Obama was elected.

Have you seen closeups of these so-called protestors? Most look like secondhand tea-bags as one commentator here in Convict Town had said. They are the same professional parasites who think that the state/country owes them a free living standard and are now out in force trying to make Trump feel bad for winning.

If he can stamp down on these parasites within the US of A and stop them milking off the system then maybe your country has a real chance of flourishing again. WE have those very same scum bags here too, who sponge off the system, so I did vote for our own version of the far right and thus far it's ticking along nicely.

Waiting for the real laws to cut-off welfare subsidies to pass in the senate but yes, we do have experience in dealing with the shirkers and bush-ticks wanting to maintain the status quo.

Businesses and billionaires milk way more off the system than those people you talk about do. All cutting off welfare subsidies to the poorest does is **** over future generations more. If you're going to rail against welfare, then rail against the system of economic oppression that makes it necessary. Bash the lack of decent paying work. Bash the cost of healthcare. Rail against the inequalities in the system that makes systemic generational poverty happen. Present solutions that pull people out of poverty instead of cutting taxes to the rich and trusting that trickle down economics, the free market, and non-profits will fix everything. They didn't with Reagan and they haven't in the last 50 years.

When did people stop having ****ing compassion in this world and when did it become about only helping the wealthy.

Businesses and billionaires milk way more off the system than those people you talk about do. All cutting off welfare subsidies to the poorest does is **** over future generations more. If you're going to rail against welfare, then rail against the system of economic oppression that makes it necessary. Bash the lack of decent paying work. Bash the cost of healthcare. Rail against the inequalities in the system that makes systemic generational poverty happen. Present solutions that pull people out of poverty instead of cutting taxes to the rich and trusting that trickle down economics, the free market, and non-profits will fix everything. They didn't with Reagan and they haven't in the last 50 years.

When did people stop having ****ing compassion in this world and when did it become about only helping the wealthy.

This is not true..

The Billionaires only have more ON PAPER..

But they are in fact not truly richer than anyone who makes ~$100,000 usd..

The life we live as americans is not improved by wealth beyond that income level..

Our true wealth is our TIME.. in this respect no one actually earns more than anyone else..

Time spent enjoying a coffee is the same as time spent chopping wood.. You do something, and time is Spent..

MONEY, in the hands of billionaires are squandered at times, This is certainly true.. But you can not blame them, They are only human and there is a limit to their inhibitions..

However, when we compare who is more valuable to society..

The do-nothing crowd is far less useful than a billionaire.

The reason being, the do-nothing crowd, is the consequence of overpopulation.. BECAUSE we have more than enough people, that's why there is excess capacity..

From the perspective of a completely unemotional, uninhibited social planner//god.. it's better to let excess capacity simply perish.. trim the fat..

And fundamentally, Population contraction is precisely this natural process.. (which is ongoing in all first world nations)

Now, Humans also have another challenge, that being Decadence.. If this happens continuously at unchecked levels, the population goes into collapse..

For example the introduction of Cheap heroin into a community..

But it does not have to be something so extreme, fast food, pornography, prostitution, All forms of reduced cost happiness..

The acceptance of these ideologies as --the norm--- is what ultimately drives decline

When all is said and done Trump fought this campaign on his own, with little to NO help from the Republican base so he alone deserves the accolade for winning here compared to Clinton's vast sums of money poured over the establishment to get her elected.

Trump is a 'Pitbull' that can maintain a long fight and I thought that is what you need above all else in a leader these days. Poor Bernie Sanders collapsed under Hillary when she applied the pressure, hence he could never be President in any way, shape or form. You need to be a street fighter ready to take down anyone who is against you, that is the job of leading the most powerful nation on Earth.

Glad Hillary never won since seeing her collapsing under the weight of the campaign early on, never had the real tenacity to win above all else against Trump. Now everything goes down in History books around the globe in which this individual that was laughed at, jeered at, was the butt of every joke made up by jealous, cretinous morons, becomes the President of the United States.

Even I'm more proud of him than our own pathetic losers here in Convict Town. Onya Trump :thumb: .

His use of the term "honest" is terrifying when in combination with a compulsive liar who literally cannot distinguish fact from fiction, and who is so detached from reality that he actually believes that he *is* honest.

That ending is perfect though. He's pointing out that republicans are not the problem, but that it's the proliferation and legitimization of right wing extremism seen in the Tea Party and birther movements. It's not those republicans with a rational basis to their beliefs, but those who believe without and in contradiction to the evidence. Instead of silencing then, they've come to represent the party.

It's a fake quote but people will believe anything about him at this point.

Your (US) media was made fools of because they actively promoted Clinton everywhere even around the Globe but when the result came through it basically showed that your media is totally inept, stupid and above all else plain WRONG.

That is why Trump beat all those pathetic 'pundits' writing his obituary saying he will never win but the people of America stopped believing in their rubbish propaganda a long time ago. In the end the person on the street wanted to give Washington the almighty, giant BIRD signal to them and they did it.

So before all the pathetic leftie garbage starts spinning the truth to suit their losses just know who won in the end, it wasn't that Clinton Swampie but someone else who will take the fight to all those bottom-feeders up in the hill, that alone is worth watching. For years we had the current system which is broke, literally and figuratively and it's always wise to throw in a something to make those comfortable barge rats pay attention, to something that has occurred and they can not stop it from happening.

It's still nice to see all the pathetic media trying their best to justify their ignorance and blindness to what has happened but take note, that if you as an American rely on these arse-holes to tell you the truth then you will be waiting at least a hundred years for that to occur. In the end History reveals everything - despite the cover-ups, lies and deceit displayed to the people of the United States on a daily basis by these untrustworthy parasites.

It's a fake quote but people will believe anything about him at this point.

Your (US) media was made fools of because they actively promoted Clinton everywhere even around the Globe but when the result came through it basically showed that your media is totally inept, stupid and above all else plain WRONG.

That is why Trump beat all those pathetic 'pundits' writing his obituary saying he will never win but the people of America stopped believing in their rubbish propaganda a long time ago. In the end the person on the street wanted to give Washington the almighty, giant BIRD signal to them and they did it.

So before all the pathetic leftie garbage starts spinning the truth to suit their losses just know who won in the end, it wasn't that Clinton Swampie but someone else who will take the fight to all those bottom-feeders up in the hill, that alone is worth watching. For years we had the current system which is broke, literally and figuratively and it's always wise to throw in a something to make those comfortable barge rats pay attention, to something that has occurred and they can not stop it from happening.

It's still nice to see all the pathetic media trying their best to justify their ignorance and blindness to what has happened but take note, that if you as an American rely on these arse-holes to tell you the truth then you will be waiting at least a hundred years for that to occur. In the end History reveals everything - despite the cover-ups, lies and deceit displayed to the people of the United States on a daily basis by these untrustworthy parasites.

don't get me started on this safespace ****. bunch of weak idiots.

You are welcome anytime, so long as you leave the microagression at the door.... unless its against the Right... or white.... or men......

Never any animosity from me, always stating nothing but the FACTS from far away. Maybe that is why I can clearly see what is happening inside your great nation, due to not being drowned in garbage media convincing me what is their version of the truth and who to believe 24/7.

The same ignorant parasites who can always be called upon to support wars, death and destruction on a daily basis. To me that is true aggression and a real crime against humanity and that needs to be stopped immediately. Funny how since Obama took office more dark skinned people were killed under his watch than any previous President. Makes you wonder why he supplied all the Police with Military weapons to use against his own population then watch him sit down and laugh at anyone who mentions this.

All those that lost their family and loved ones under this idiot President need to under stand that vital fact here, he did nothing for the poor or the unemployed yet the far Left still wants to process it's lies as the truth about caring for all the minorities within the United States. As I'm dark skinned I wouldn't feel comfortable walking down the streets of any City for fear of being shot by my local Police. Imagine how those living in the US feel about what has happened to them under this President. Glad he is leaving but the mess that Trump has to clean up is a long haul here, so it won't be instant but it needs to be done to restore confidence in a Republic that has lost it's way under two moronic parties.

Just give Trump a chance to work on this instead of kicking and crying all the time like ignorant babies. Time to grow up and realize that there is a lot to fix after decades of morose leadership and deformed implementations.

It's still nice to see all the pathetic media trying their best to justify their ignorance and blindness to what has happened but take note, that if you as an American rely on these arse-holes to tell you the truth then you will be waiting at least a hundred years for that to occur. In the end History reveals everything - despite the cover-ups, lies and deceit displayed to the people of the United States on a daily basis by these untrustworthy parasites.

Elrick, do you think media is equally bad around the world or just in the US? Also, how do you know that the reports that are delivered to you in Craptown are the accurate accounts? I am not challenging your information but instead trying to understand the assurance that you have in your sources.

His use of the term "honest" is terrifying when in combination with a compulsive liar who literally cannot distinguish fact from fiction, and who is so detached from reality that he actually believes that he *is* honest.

It’s a different kind of “honest”. Trump has no moral principles, no empathy, no long-term memory (except for petty revenge), and no patience for facts or reason. So he “honestly” says whatever happens to be in his head at the time. Which is often precisely the opposite of whatever was in his head a few hours before, and seldom bears even passing resemblance to reality.

But it’s different than other Republicans, who believe one set of things in private, but pretend to believe something else publicly as a means to an end.

Trump is incapable of that type of pretension. He’ll happily lie through his teeth, but it’s the obvious fabulism of a naughty 5-year-old, not the practiced conspiracy of a shrewd politician.

His use of the term "honest" is terrifying when in combination with a compulsive liar who literally cannot distinguish fact from fiction, and who is so detached from reality that he actually believes that he *is* honest.

It’s a different kind of “honest”. Trump has no moral principles, no empathy, no long-term memory (except for petty revenge), and no patience for facts or reason. So he “honestly” says whatever happens to be in his head at the time. Which is often precisely the opposite of whatever was in his head a few hours before, and seldom bears even passing resemblance to reality.

But it’s different than other Republicans, who believe one set of things in private, but pretend to believe something else publicly as a means to an end.

Trump is incapable of that type of pretension. He’ll happily lie through his teeth, but it’s the obvious fabulism of a naughty 5-year-old, not the practiced conspiracy of a shrewd politician.

You can't possibly know this..

It could all be an elaborate ploy to ward off suspicion of his deeper motive..

Every person who has ever worked with Trump says pretty much the same thing about him. Trump is not smart enough for elaborate plots or deeper motives. The most powerful person in Trump’s organization is whoever talks with him last, right before he makes a decision, because he tends to agree with whoever he last met with.

Every person who has ever worked with Trump says pretty much the same thing about him. Trump is not smart enough for elaborate plots or deeper motives. The most powerful person in Trump’s organization is whoever talks with him last, right before he makes a decision, because he tends to agree with whoever he last met with.

So far everything you have said sounds like your own personal speculations. At times, Trump has spoken in hyperboles, but saying Every person who has ever worked with Trump is just one and the same. You speak as if you know him. Yawn

Listen mates, you're all better off NOT falling for the bait of being pit against each other, but instead figuring a path towards a better humanity and a government that protects the people, rather than attacks them, both here and aboard. Trump won't do that for, Clinton won't do that for you, the parties won't do that for you, and the government won't do that for you.

Listen to each other, understand, turn off your damn television, read a variety of news sources and take them all with a grain of salt, actually try to understand something being rambling and parroting back whatever you're told, and think of solutions that DON'T treat a person as less than human.

Listen mates, you're all better off NOT falling for the bait of being pit against each other, but instead figuring a path towards a better humanity and a government that protects the people, rather than attacks them, both here and aboard. Trump won't do that for, Clinton won't do that for you, the parties won't do that for you, and the government won't do that for you.

Listen to each other, understand, turn off your damn television, read a variety of news sources and take them all with a grain of salt, actually try to understand something being rambling and parroting back whatever you're told, and think of solutions that DON'T treat a person as less than human.

This is bickering is useless and doesn't get us anywhere.

(http://i.imgur.com/PQjhaJv.gif)

I've wanted to post this on every board that I'm on where this conversation has popped up, but have been too disenchanted by the noise there that I haven't Thanks for being better than I.

The thing is, almost half the people voted for Trump. A bit over half voted for Hillary. The last time that there was even a margin of success of over 20% was in 72. And yet, in every election, people bemoan that there are people like that, that would vote for the candidate that wasn't theirs. They are here, they will always be here, and they are the reason the system works as well as it does. So quit othering them, pull up your big boy britches (no matter what side you're on) and work together to make it work.

So quit othering them, pull up your big boy britches (no matter what side you're on) and work together to make it work.

Where was that sentiment when Obama was in office though? The entire Obama tenure was marked by obstructionism and a flat out refusal to try and meet in any middle ground. When people proposed working together to make it work, they were ostracized and called RINOs or, if they were Dems, they were laughed at and given the bird by the majority. Obama continuously tried to offer compromises, including moderate Supreme Court nominees, and he was constantly fought against because he was a Democrat. There's a reason so many liberals are pissed off by this, it's because it shows that throwing a temper tantrum and behaving badly for 8 years and in the election season gets rewarded.

I used to love the likes of McCain and other so called moderate Republicans because there used to be a willingness to reach across the aisle and work together. Since McCain ran for office and the extremist Tea Party and birthers became the voice of the party, that has all gone away.

Trump got 47.% of 55.6% of the US citizens eligible to vote. That means that he was elected by 26% of the eligible voters.

The hell of it is, *everybody* that wanted to vote for Trump, did!

Therefore, the way I see it, 74% of the American population does not want him. The fact that 99 million Americans were too stupid or apathetic to walk to their nearby polling place is an indictment of them - that will cause all of us extraordinary pain.

So quit othering them, pull up your big boy britches (no matter what side you're on) and work together to make it work.

Where was that sentiment when Obama was in office though? The entire Obama tenure was marked by obstructionism and a flat out refusal to try and meet in any middle ground. When people proposed working together to make it work, they were ostracized and called RINOs or, if they were Dems, they were laughed at and given the bird by the majority. Obama continuously tried to offer compromises, including moderate Supreme Court nominees, and he was constantly fought against because he was a Democrat. There's a reason so many liberals are pissed off by this, it's because it shows that throwing a temper tantrum and behaving badly for 8 years and in the election season gets rewarded.

I used to love the likes of McCain and other so called moderate Republicans because there used to be a willingness to reach across the aisle and work together. Since McCain ran for office and the extremist Tea Party and birthers became the voice of the party, that has all gone away.

I've heard the same thing of Dems - to make Trump a one term president. Shouldn't the objective, and dare I say it, their jobs be to run the government effectively? And that sentiment was where it is now- ignored. And that's the problem. Be bigger than the other side, and show them how to lose with grace. And how to get things done without being obstructionist.

Trump got 47.% of 55.6% of the US citizens eligible to vote. That means that he was elected by 26% of the eligible voters.

The hell of it is, *everybody* that wanted to vote for Trump, did!

Therefore, the way I see it, 74% of the American population does not want him. The fact that 99 million Americans were too stupid or apathetic to walk to their nearby polling place is an indictment of them - that will cause all of us extraordinary pain.

How do you know that everyone that would have voted for Trump voted? You don't. The same logic could be applied if Hillary won.

He played the game, he won. It's not in the winning, it's in what happens. And people shouldn't take themselves out of the process just because they lost. It's at that point that it makes the most sense to be part of the process.

I've wanted to post this on every board that I'm on where this conversation has popped up, but have been too disenchanted by the noise there that I haven't Thanks for being better than I.

The thing is, almost half the people voted for Trump. A bit over half voted for Hillary. The last time that there was even a margin of success of over 20% was in 72. And yet, in every election, people bemoan that there are people like that, that would vote for the candidate that wasn't theirs. They are here, they will always be here, and they are the reason the system works as well as it does. So quit othering them, pull up your big boy britches (no matter what side you're on) and work together to make it work.

Thanks. Half of the people that voted went for Trump, which was only 26% of eligible voters. The largest vote getter was nobody, because 47%(?) of the eligible voters did not vote.

Trump got 47.% of 55.6% of the US citizens eligible to vote. That means that he was elected by 26% of the eligible voters.

The hell of it is, *everybody* that wanted to vote for Trump, did!

Therefore, the way I see it, 74% of the American population does not want him. The fact that 99 million Americans were too stupid or apathetic to walk to their nearby polling place is an indictment of them - that will cause all of us extraordinary pain.

Good analysis of the statistics. Calling non-voters stupid or apathetic does not help. Many people that do not vote simply feel that the political discussion does not speak to any of their needs or interests. Chat with some non-voters and they have their reasons. I think the best way to convince a non-voter to get to the polls is emphasize the importance of local offices, because we can directly engage in those and those have a direct effect on our lives.

So quit othering them, pull up your big boy britches (no matter what side you're on) and work together to make it work.

Where was that sentiment when Obama was in office though? The entire Obama tenure was marked by obstructionism and a flat out refusal to try and meet in any middle ground. When people proposed working together to make it work, they were ostracized and called RINOs or, if they were Dems, they were laughed at and given the bird by the majority. Obama continuously tried to offer compromises, including moderate Supreme Court nominees, and he was constantly fought against because he was a Democrat. There's a reason so many liberals are pissed off by this, it's because it shows that throwing a temper tantrum and behaving badly for 8 years and in the election season gets rewarded.

I used to love the likes of McCain and other so called moderate Republicans because there used to be a willingness to reach across the aisle and work together. Since McCain ran for office and the extremist Tea Party and birthers became the voice of the party, that has all gone away.

Maybe the sentiment was not there, and Senate Democrats may continue that obstructionism. But work to do in your personal interactions with people of different political beliefs and I think you will have more in common than not. And turn the dissatisfaction towards amending the system to improve the results and voter engagement. For example: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Calling non-voters stupid may possibly be out of line. Calling them apathetic is absolutely accurate.

I have never, in my entire lifetime, heard any reason whatsoever for not voting that was rational, much less valid.

There is no member of society who is not deeply affected by the government under which they live, every minute of their lives, and it is impossible to fabricate an imaginary scenario in which the current and future direction of that government is inconsequential to the individual and to the society in which he lives.

Calling non-voters stupid may possibly be out of line. Calling them apathetic is absolutely accurate.

I have never, in my entire lifetime, heard any reason whatsoever for not voting that was rational, much less valid.

There is no member of society who is not deeply affected by the government under which they live, every minute of their lives, and it is impossible to fabricate an imaginary scenario in which the current and future direction of that government is inconsequential to the individual and to the society in which he lives.

Not voting is a pouting tantrum of a 2-year-old.

How wrong can you be? Abstaining has always been a recourse in elections. And if you don't research the candidates, you're actually doing more harm than good, taking the word of the media, or people around you. Apathy implies a lack of caring- it actually takes more caring to realize that neither is a valid option, and by choosing either, the voter is endorsing a candidate that will not be good for the country. I'm not saying that this is the stance of everyone who did not vote, nor that there are not people out there who didn't vote out of apathy. But to lump everyone in the same category with no empirical proof- that's just wrong.

Earlier in my career, when I worked an average of 55+ hours a week to make ends meet, I admit I didn't spend enough time going over the issues. Somehow, just keeping the family fed took a higher priority. I almost always voted, but the reasons for my choices were so flimsy that I think I was doing the country a disservice. That's why I shudder when I see celebrities like Miley Cyrus going to college dorm rooms to encourage student (who probably are nursing a hangover from the night before) to get out and vote. Don't get me wrong, many students are very well informed, but they probably have already resolved to vote anyway. Cyrusian tactics usually just draw out the zombies that don't have a clue as to what their doing when they enter the voting booth.

I agree it's our duty to vote, but if we can't be informed voters, it's probably our best alternate duty to not vote. Truth is, I'd rather have someone like Fohat, whose vote has probably canceled out every one I've made in the last 20 years, vote instead of an ill informed voter who accidentally presses the same buttons as I do.

Earlier in my career, when I worked an average of 55+ hours a week to make ends meet, I admit I didn't spend enough time going over the issues. Somehow, just keeping the family fed took a higher priority. I almost always voted, but the reasons for my choices were so flimsy that I think I was doing the country a disservice. That's why I shudder when I see celebrities like Miley Cyrus going to college dorm rooms to encourage student (who probably are nursing a hangover from the night before) to get out and vote. Don't get me wrong, many students are very well informed, but they probably have already resolved to vote anyway. Cyrusian tactics usually just draw out the zombies that don't have a clue as to what their doing when they enter the voting booth.

I agree it's our duty to vote, but if we can't be informed voters, it's probably our best alternate duty to not vote. Truth is, I'd rather have someone like Fohat, whose vote has probably canceled out every one I've made in the last 20 years, vote instead of an ill informed voter who accidentally presses the same buttons as I do.

Calling non-voters stupid may possibly be out of line. Calling them apathetic is absolutely accurate.

I have never, in my entire lifetime, heard any reason whatsoever for not voting that was rational, much less valid.

There is no member of society who is not deeply affected by the government under which they live, every minute of their lives, and it is impossible to fabricate an imaginary scenario in which the current and future direction of that government is inconsequential to the individual and to the society in which he lives.

Calling non-voters stupid may possibly be out of line. Calling them apathetic is absolutely accurate.

I have never, in my entire lifetime, heard any reason whatsoever for not voting that was rational, much less valid.

There is no member of society who is not deeply affected by the government under which they live, every minute of their lives, and it is impossible to fabricate an imaginary scenario in which the current and future direction of that government is inconsequential to the individual and to the society in which he lives.

Not voting is a pouting tantrum of a 2-year-old.

Just wondering, is it possible to vote blank in the US?

Are you talking about donkey voting? As in drawing a **** on the ballot instead of picking between a dooche and a turd?

Calling non-voters stupid may possibly be out of line. Calling them apathetic is absolutely accurate.

I have never, in my entire lifetime, heard any reason whatsoever for not voting that was rational, much less valid.

There is no member of society who is not deeply affected by the government under which they live, every minute of their lives, and it is impossible to fabricate an imaginary scenario in which the current and future direction of that government is inconsequential to the individual and to the society in which he lives.

Not voting is a pouting tantrum of a 2-year-old.

Just wondering, is it possible to vote blank in the US?

Are you talking about donkey voting? As in drawing a **** on the ballot instead of picking between a dooche and a turd?

No, it's an option where I'm from that just allows you to vote for no party at all. It means you're engaged with the elections, and appreciate your right to vote, but don't like any of the available options.

It's a much better way of doing a "protect vote" than just staying at home watching TV I think.

Calling non-voters stupid may possibly be out of line. Calling them apathetic is absolutely accurate.

I have never, in my entire lifetime, heard any reason whatsoever for not voting that was rational, much less valid.

There is no member of society who is not deeply affected by the government under which they live, every minute of their lives, and it is impossible to fabricate an imaginary scenario in which the current and future direction of that government is inconsequential to the individual and to the society in which he lives.

Not voting is a pouting tantrum of a 2-year-old.

Just wondering, is it possible to vote blank in the US?

Are you talking about donkey voting? As in drawing a **** on the ballot instead of picking between a dooche and a turd?

No, it's an option where I'm from that just allows you to vote for no party at all. It means you're engaged with the elections, and appreciate your right to vote, but don't like any of the available options.

It's a much better way of doing a "protect vote" than just staying at home watching TV I think.

Oh ok, in Australia you get fined if you dont vote (like 20 dollars). But your not monitored when you scribble on the paper so your free not to select anyone one. But there is no choose to not select anyone option. Local elections piss me off the most and seem to carry a harsher fine so i generally dont take them seriously. Interestingly enough, last local election i voted trump.....

In each separate race there is a slate of candidates and you choose one (sometimes it is "vote for 3 from this list" or something like that).

Just like a multiple choice test in school, you can skip the question and/or not mark anyone.

And, last, in the holdover from the pre-Industrial age, the Electoral College, although it looks like you are voting for a presidential candidate, you are actually voting for your state's "electors" who are "pledged" to vote for that candidate later. In some states they are required by law to do so, in others they could vote their personal conscience with impunity (although that is rare).

Calling non-voters stupid may possibly be out of line. Calling them apathetic is absolutely accurate.

I have never, in my entire lifetime, heard any reason whatsoever for not voting that was rational, much less valid.

There is no member of society who is not deeply affected by the government under which they live, every minute of their lives, and it is impossible to fabricate an imaginary scenario in which the current and future direction of that government is inconsequential to the individual and to the society in which he lives.

Not voting is a pouting tantrum of a 2-year-old.

Just wondering, is it possible to vote blank in the US?

Are you talking about donkey voting? As in drawing a **** on the ballot instead of picking between a dooche and a turd?

No, it's an option where I'm from that just allows you to vote for no party at all. It means you're engaged with the elections, and appreciate your right to vote, but don't like any of the available options.

It's a much better way of doing a "protect vote" than just staying at home watching TV I think.

They've made that less and less an option in many municipalities- supposedly to combat voter fraud and voter mistakes.

tp spoke and the people listened. Who knew he had such a far-reaching influence.

I think that the pundits are really overlooking the weight of tp4's endorsement this year..

Strength in Unity... A Better America for ALL...

The majority of PEOPLE , have a job, they have kids, they're not hungry, they got steady income.

BUT, that does not mean these people understand Politics/ Economics/ Humans

The greater number of people will always only see the world relative to themselves.. That is not to say they are selfish, only that their perspective is narrow.. They are truly only equipped to handle their own interests, it ends there..

Their opinion / ideology / BELIEF are wholly inadequate to model or judge the ROLE of the Social-Planner..

tp spoke and the people listened. Who knew he had such a far-reaching influence.

I think that the pundits are really overlooking the weight of tp4's endorsement this year..

Seriously. I doubt this thread had enough weight to sway a US presidential election

Hahahahahah.. Tp4 also doubt it.. If anything it probably cost him votes..

I'd prolly guess that the bulk of Geekhackers are young kids who don't know nething about nething.. So, they actually got off their butts and voted in the first place, and, prolly voted hillary because they're so used to getting picked on in School by people like Trump..

--- IN FACT, am quite certain, that this psychological scarring had been the deciding factor for the majority of the ---EDucated voters---

Logically, All of Trump's behaviors / beliefs makes him a Great President, No one is going to Bully Trump, NO ONE CAN...

AND, Being a Bully should be in the Job description//

Trump might be a TERRIBLE PERSON, but that's EXACTLY who should be President..

tp spoke and the people listened. Who knew he had such a far-reaching influence.

I think that the pundits are really overlooking the weight of tp4's endorsement this year..

Seriously. I doubt this thread had enough weight to sway a US presidential election

I don't know what more I could do to make it more clear that it was a joke, besides directly saying it is a joke. :p

I'm pretty sure tp started this thread as a joke. But somewhere amongst the chaos jokes became facts that erupted all over America into protests. So it's difficult for me to see who is actually joking in this thread and who is actually being srs. Ok, my bad :-[

tp spoke and the people listened. Who knew he had such a far-reaching influence.

I think that the pundits are really overlooking the weight of tp4's endorsement this year..

Seriously. I doubt this thread had enough weight to sway a US presidential election

I don't know what more I could do to make it more clear that it was a joke, besides directly saying it is a joke. :p

I'm pretty sure tp started this thread as a joke. But somewhere amongst the chaos jokes became facts that erupted all over America into protests. So it's difficult for me to see who is actually joking in this thread and who is actually being srs. Ok, my bad :-[

I agree it's our duty to vote, but if we can't be informed voters, it's probably our best alternate duty to not vote. Truth is, I'd rather have someone like Fohat, whose vote has probably canceled out every one I've made in the last 20 years, vote instead of an ill informed voter who accidentally presses the same buttons as I do.

I think that overall our system was pretty well thought out. A system which respects the points of views of all of its constituents, while still having safeguards to prevent abuses by factions. As unlikely as it may seem to most of us, other people may have different but valid perspectives which should be, at least, considered. Therefore, in general, a well developed argument, even if it's wrong, is more important to the system than a volume of input with no substance; the latter simply clouding the results.

Being only minimally utilitarian in my philosophy of right and wrong, I don't generally agree with the Machiavellian concept that the ends justify the means. I think we should trust the system and try to work within it, accept it, and fight it only as a last resort. That includes voter fraud, coercion as well as suppression, and equally important—accepting the results.

Being only minimally utilitarian in my philosophy of right and wrong, I don't generally agree with the Machiavellian concept that the ends justify the means. I think we should trust the system and try to work within it, accept it, and fight it only as a last resort. That includes voter fraud, coercion as well as suppression, and equally important—accepting the results.

Totally agree.

It's extremely unsettling that when the PEOPLE voted for someone the Establishment dispises suddenly Democracy has Failed. This is where you really need it despite what the Mass Media is saying. Currently a lot of HATE is being distributed via the media today to not trust your democratic system and in fact instill some kind of sick overthrow like that will instill confidence and stability within your nation.

So funny that back when Obama got elected the system worked Perfectly but now when the mainstream parties and media working hand in hand can not stomach the people making their choice, it's now unbearable and wrong. You can't pick and choose what you want, especially by the current corrupt swampies on the hill who want to desperately maintain the Status Quo of funding wars and oppression.

This is a unique time where the majority didn't believe the lies distributed daily by the mass media so I applaud their strength in choosing the right person here. Trump isn't another swampie gearing up for WW3 but he wants to cut back expenditure which Obama has ramped up consistently, during his term in office.

Maybe for the first time in 8 years we actually might have a more peaceful world as all the terrorist regimes/groups get no more weapons and money to maintain their misery across the globe.

Elrick, do you think media is equally bad around the world or just in the US? Also, how do you know that the reports that are delivered to you in Craptown are the accurate accounts? I am not challenging your information but instead trying to understand the assurance that you have in your sources.

With the current media in the West applauding and singing from the same cheat sheets. They are all in unison when it comes to reporting everything concerning the EU, Western and Eastern societies and that alone raises suspicion that you can't have an objective media when every newspaper and media source is quoting the very same sources, delivered via Washington on a daily basis.

RT seems to be the only source providing another view point in what's happening in Libya, Middle East, Western Europe and Eastern Europe which all the western media has ignored. So that alone raises extreme distrust in the current status quo within main stream media only reporting lacklustre rubbish. That has disenfranchised whole populations within Europe that do not believe in the mass media anymore because they failed them in every way.

Also that delivered a Trump win which the mass media has totally misread the public and failed to accurately report reality. The mass media chose to ignore middle america's plight and in fact make's fun of them calling them in bred and ignorant even today. So we now have the moronic media attacking the people instead of the inept leadership which has delivered a failed state to the majority of the middle class.

When the mass media fails to report what is actually happening it's all of us that miss out in having an informed democratic system.

Being only minimally utilitarian in my philosophy of right and wrong, I don't generally agree with the Machiavellian concept that the ends justify the means. I think we should trust the system and try to work within it, accept it, and fight it only as a last resort. That includes voter fraud, coercion as well as suppression, and equally important—accepting the results.

Totally agree.

It's extremely unsettling that when the PEOPLE voted for someone the Establishment dispises suddenly Democracy has Failed. This is where you really need it despite what the Mass Media is saying. Currently a lot of HATE is being distributed via the media today to not trust your democratic system and in fact instill some kind of sick overthrow like that will instill confidence and stability within your nation.

So funny that back when Obama got elected the system worked Perfectly but now when the mainstream parties and media working hand in hand can not stomach the people making their choice, it's now unbearable and wrong. You can't pick and choose what you want, especially by the current corrupt swampies on the hill who want to desperately maintain the Status Quo of funding wars and oppression.

This is a unique time where the majority didn't believe the lies distributed daily by the mass media so I applaud their strength in choosing the right person here. Trump isn't another swampie gearing up for WW3 but he wants to cut back expenditure which Obama has ramped up consistently, during his term in office.

Maybe for the first time in 8 years we actually might have a more peaceful world as all the terrorist regimes/groups get no more weapons and money to maintain their misery across the globe.

Many said the same thing about the elections then. This is not a liberal/conservative nor a republic/democrat thing. It's human nature, especially when you don't want to shine the light on your party's particular failures.

The Founding Fathers depended on an informed and engaged electorate and a free press to disseminate reliable information.

Read the publications surrounding the establishment and ratification of the Constitution, in particular "The Federalist Papers" and it is clear what the intent and assumptions were for the health and maintenance of the system.

Today those components have broken down to the point that we have a controlled partisan press monopoly promoting an incompetent and unqualified bozo about to be installed based on the vote of 26% of the qualified population of the country.

It's stupid to think we really get a say in who becomes president. If America had any say at all neither Hillary nor Trump would have been in the running, yet we had no choice but to choose one of two unlikable people who paid to win. The entire idea of democracy in America is a goddamn sham.

The Founding Fathers depended on an informed and engaged electorate and a free press to disseminate reliable information.

Read the publications surrounding the establishment and ratification of the Constitution, in particular "The Federalist Papers" and it is clear what the intent and assumptions were for the health and maintenance of the system.

Today those components have broken down to the point that we have a controlled partisan press monopoly promoting an incompetent and unqualified bozo about to be installed based on the vote of 26% of the qualified population of the country.

Exactly, the BIG mistake for the United States but mostly every other Western Nation is allowing Conglomerates to buy out all the information services.

Now you have only ONE agenda, the complete support of the current status quo which is what is really hurting not just the middle class within America but on a whole Global stage as well. Hi-jacking news and purposely ignoring the real issues has shown in this election how the people of this country and around the globe where grossly misinformed.

What is truly disgusting with all these Corporate News Media is instead of admitting their mistakes they start attacking everyone else and that to me is the first time I've seen such deplorable behaviour from News Services which were suppose to be independent from the regime and not remain as it's lapdog, to attack anyone who questions their motives or intentions.

It's stupid to think we really get a say in who becomes president. If America had any say at all neither Hillary nor Trump would have been in the running, yet we had no choice but to choose one of two unlikable people who paid to win. The entire idea of democracy in America is a goddamn sham.

It's a bit of both.

YES, there were only two candidates despite being another two more which were ignored by the Mass Media Hardly heard anything from Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Then there was also Evan McMullin or Darrell Castle so basically there were a lot of others vying for the Presidency but the TWO party system made sure that they never got within a million miles of winning.

All we heard for more than 2 years, was Hillary Clinton (98% popularity by all the Mass Media) and Donald Trump (everyone and his dog would never vote for, again from the Mass Media).

BUT we didn't get the future foretold by the idiotic/blind Mass Media and that is what really hurts their credibility today. Never trust garbage pretending to be the Absolute Truth by any Corporate Media because 98% of the time, it's guaranteed to be an Absolute Lie.

If America had any say at all neither Hillary nor Trump would have been in the running,

It all comes back to people's apathy at not voting. I have made it a point to vote in EVERY election throughout my adult life, even down to off-year runoff elections for dog-catcher (sarcasm there).

The primary system is particularly susceptible to that problem (even though we had a couple of important county ballot measures piggy-backing on last spring) and provides us with all these bad choices.

Trump was nominated on the vote of under 6% of the eligible voters in the country, and Clinton by less than 8%.

If America had any say at all neither Hillary nor Trump would have been in the running,

It all comes back to people's apathy at not voting. I have made it a point to vote in EVERY election throughout my adult life, even down to off-year runoff elections for dog-catcher (sarcasm there).

The primary system is particularly susceptible to that problem (even though we had a couple of important county ballot measures piggy-backing on last spring) and provides us with all these bad choices.

Trump was nominated on the vote of under 6% of the eligible voters in the country, and Clinton by less than 8%.

Apathy would be harsh in this instance mainly because vast numbers still turned out to vote. What really hurt Obama/Clinton was the entrenchment of Wall Street within their cabinet for the last 8 years.

Eight long years of slaughtering American Manufacturing because those greedy tossers in Wall Street, made money for multi-nationals to move all of their operations into 3rd world countries to build the very same items that were once made on US soil. Hence the unemployment of all those people and families that got retrenched and dumped like refuse in the march for record growth through a broken and corrupted economy.

They were the ones that never benefited in the so-called GREAT FREE-MARKET system which was exclusively geared towards Huge Multi-Nationals to enjoy and pay next to no tax whatsoever. Meanwhile millions of Americans now enjoy no future at all and for their children as well so they came out to make a difference through voting. They are the ones that are living the American Nightmare whilst all the Mass media kept saying they never had it so good under Obama and Co.

All the so-called experts that said they knew what America wanted and got it so wrong, so next time you switch on your TV in the heart land of the United States and another boring tosser starts talking about what will happen in the future, remember that these same morons never picked Trump's win and for me they've lost all credibility. How can you take advice from 'EXPERTS" who can't see anything around them or even see what is actually happening?

long years of slaughtering American Manufacturing because those greedy tossers in Wall Street

Manufacturing started leaving the US in earnest in the 1970s, and accelerated dramatically under Reagan.

As our manufacturing base, coming out of WW2 at an all-time strength, was wearing down, the next-generation capabilities of our former foes, Germany and Japan, financed by the Marshall Plan, was peaking. Today, the Third World may not be so advanced mechanically, but the near-infinite supply of ultra-cheap labor makes that now the cheapest place to manufacture.

I get sick of people falsely attributing NAFTA to Bill Clinton. Look it up. It was Bush Sr's pet project for much of his term, and he signed before leaving office.

long years of slaughtering American Manufacturing because those greedy tossers in Wall Street

Manufacturing started leaving the US in earnest in the 1970s, and accelerated dramatically under Reagan.

As our manufacturing base, coming out of WW2 at an all-time strength, was wearing down, the next-generation capabilities of our former foes, Germany and Japan, financed by the Marshall Plan, was peaking. Today, the Third World may not be so advanced mechanically, but the near-infinite supply of ultra-cheap labor makes that now the cheapest place to manufacture.

I get sick of people falsely attributing NAFTA to Bill Clinton. Look it up. It was Bush Sr's pet project for much of his term, and he signed before leaving office.

Pssh. Reagan's trickle down golden shower helped lift so many people out of poverty man. Don't you even know?

If Clinton wasn't surrounded by so much scandal, artificial or genuine, she would be great candidate

I mean, she is among the most qualified people to run for office, and shes beat by a man who has never held office of any kind in his whole life, it's a shame. I would have voted for her enthusiastically.

If Clinton wasn't surrounded by so much scandal, artificial or genuine, she would be great candidate

I mean, she is among the most qualified people to run for office, and shes beat by a man who has never held office of any kind in his whole life, it's a shame. I would have voted for her enthusiastically.

I can vote in the 2018 mid terms, at least.

No she would not have been a good president.

For one, she's on psychoactive medication just to stay upright.

The stress has already gotten to her and deteriorated her physical condition..

And the type of meds she's on, well, they greatly alter neural firings.

Though logic may not be compromised, there's no telling what type of polarization may occur..

If Clinton wasn't surrounded by so much scandal, artificial or genuine, she would be great candidate

I mean, she is among the most qualified people to run for office, and shes beat by a man who has never held office of any kind in his whole life, it's a shame. I would have voted for her enthusiastically.

If Clinton wasn't surrounded by so much scandal, artificial or genuine, she would be great candidate

I mean, she is among the most qualified people to run for office, and shes beat by a man who has never held office of any kind in his whole life, it's a shame. I would have voted for her enthusiastically.

I can vote in the 2018 mid terms, at least.

No she would not have been a good president.

For one, she's on psychoactive medication just to stay upright.

The stress has already gotten to her and deteriorated her physical condition..

And the type of meds she's on, well, they greatly alter neural firings.

Though logic may not be compromised, there's no telling what type of polarization may occur..

both candidates suck but i prefer trump over hillary. thats how i view it.

From a relatively uninformed outside perspective you were given the choice of voting for two unacceptable 'famous' candidates and two with no advertising budget.

I liken this choice to having to chose between being shot in the right leg, left leg, or shot at by one of two people who've been blindfolded and spun around so will probably do less damage. A huge majority of those who voted wanted to get shot...

If Clinton wasn't surrounded by so much scandal, artificial or genuine, she would be great candidate

I mean, she is among the most qualified people to run for office, and shes beat by a man who has never held office of any kind in his whole life, it's a shame. I would have voted for her enthusiastically.

I can vote in the 2018 mid terms, at least.

No she would not have been a good president.

For one, she's on psychoactive medication just to stay upright.

The stress has already gotten to her and deteriorated her physical condition..

And the type of meds she's on, well, they greatly alter neural firings.

Though logic may not be compromised, there's no telling what type of polarization may occur..

I've never seen that quote before but that is exactly what I started thinking about when I woke up this morning. The Republican party has been working for decades to enact laws that diminish or restrict the ability of minorities and poor people to vote. They successfully conspired (project REDMAP) to gain control of state legislatures in 2010 for the express purpose of redrawing voting districts to consolidate non-conservative voters into fewer voting districts, increase the number of Republican voting districts, and give the Republican party more power and control. In 2017, the Republican party will control all three branches of the federal government. Imagine what they can do with the NSA's surveillance programs. They will have the capability to direct surveillance to specific political opponents. I'm not talking about Democrats in Congress. I'm talking about journalists and activists, or really, anyone who is critical of them. It's no secret how Trump feels about the media. He might be tempted to have people use information gathered from NSA surveillance of American citizens to interfere with the press or to punish people who have been openly critical of him. Many corporations have used methods like ALEC to get people in Congress to propose and enact legislation written by the corporations for the corporations. Imagine people in Trump's administration using surveillance information to blackmail vulnerable journalists into publishing "news" stories fabricated by people in Trump's administration.

I'm not saying that this will happen, but it seems a lot less far-fetched now. The government's surveillance programs have always had the potential to be used this way (and in far worse ways). If they have already been used this way, how would we know? The potential and temptation for abuse of the system of spying on American citizens is why so many people are opposed to it. Will the Republican party prove that their fears are founded? Any abuse of the system normalizes that behavior and sets a precedent. It undermines the very foundation of our country. Is Trump the kind of person who could recognize that? Is he the kind of person who would prioritize the long-term security of the nation above his short-term political and financial ambitions? What about the people he appoints to his administration?

both candidates suck but i prefer trump over hillary. thats how i view it.

From a relatively uninformed outside perspective you were given the choice of voting for two unacceptable 'famous' candidates and two with no advertising budget.

I liken this choice to having to chose between being shot in the right leg, left leg, or shot at by one of two people who've been blindfolded and spun around so will probably do less damage. A huge majority of those who voted wanted to get shot...

Then you misunderstand Modern Democracy in the first place..

WE DON"T have a Democracy..

That's rule #1 of the 21st century..

It's an Oligarchy through and through.. It has ALWAYS been an Oligarchy..

Even between bands of 2 people.. the stronger person has more power..

Democracy assumes equal decision rights (at some level), but that is impossible, because you only have as much rights as your ability to enforce/enact them.

The problem is not with the world as it is.. the problem is with ^^^^ That^^^^ assumption which form their primary benchmark for democracy.. which is plain WRONG.

Ultimately who cares. Does anyone really believe their day to day is going to change in any way? Coming to the realization that the job of President is very controlled, and mostly a figure head position.

Nice to know that Trump is like all other politicians and completely bull****s during his campaign before not actually doing anything he said he would.

My dad said the same thing tonight, and I think he even voted for Trump. The president-elect is a pathological liar, this was to be expected. He knows that many of his supporters are roped in regardless of what he says, now he is pandering to more of a middle ground to attempt to rope in more moderate or even left-leaning individuals.

As long as he doesn't start tramping on individual rights and civil liberties in concert with the rest of the Republican Party, at least we will be entertained.

Ultimately who cares. Does anyone really believe their day to day is going to change in any way? Coming to the realization that the job of President is very controlled, and mostly a figure head position.

I know health care will be affected for the better of my family, so I am happy

Ultimately who cares. Does anyone really believe their day to day is going to change in any way? Coming to the realization that the job of President is very controlled, and mostly a figure head position.

I know health care will be affected for the better of my family, so I am happy

For the better? How do you figure that?

obama care is **** for us

You do realize that they don't really have a plan to replace it, don't you? Just a half-assed document by Ryan that doesn't cover many of the points. So what you'll end up with is no insurance again?

Ultimately who cares. Does anyone really believe their day to day is going to change in any way? Coming to the realization that the job of President is very controlled, and mostly a figure head position.

I know health care will be affected for the better of my family, so I am happy

For the better? How do you figure that?

obama care is **** for us

You do realize that they don't really have a plan to replace it, don't you? Just a half-assed document by Ryan that doesn't cover many of the points. So what you'll end up with is no insurance again?

Well, it got ****ed over by congress to begin with, so it's no surprise that it would continue to get further ****ed.

My mom switched careers and had about a 5 month gap in insurance until the school year started. Put my sister on one of the ACA plans that it claimed all her specialists would accept. Turns out they didn't because as they told us, they weren't being reimbursed and the offices decided it wasn't worth it. Ended up paying almost everything except the prescriptions out of pocket.

Now back to insurance through work and all is well, so IDK who did it or whats up, but I hope all this **** gets ironed out because it was a royal cluster****.

Ultimately who cares. Does anyone really believe their day to day is going to change in any way? Coming to the realization that the job of President is very controlled, and mostly a figure head position.

I know health care will be affected for the better of my family, so I am happy

For the better? How do you figure that?

obama care is **** for us

You do realize that they don't really have a plan to replace it, don't you? Just a half-assed document by Ryan that doesn't cover many of the points. So what you'll end up with is no insurance again?

My mom switched careers and had about a 5 month gap in insurance until the school year started. Put my sister on one of the ACA plans that it claimed all her specialists would accept. Turns out they didn't because as they told us, they weren't being reimbursed and the offices decided it wasn't worth it. Ended up paying almost everything except the prescriptions out of pocket.

Now back to insurance through work and all is well, so IDK who did it or whats up, but I hope all this **** gets ironed out because it was a royal cluster****.

Any plan they put in place is going to have problems and people that slip through the cracks. My brother in law had a similar experience, but worked with them for months and got it straightened out.

Instead of answering the question? Ok. And for your information, I do know how to do it, I was just not in front of my computer.

even though we don't have ACA insurance it affects all insurance companies and their thievery. Rates, copay's and the like have gone up upon it's activation.

Why is it then, that when I just re-upped my insurance, I got better coverage than last year for less money?

Note: you might want to tone down the rhetoric too- I'm centrist, and hate both parties (and their candidates) equally. Both were/are corrupt and less than ideal choices. I blame the RNC and the DNC for that bit- usually there is one or the other that I can get behind even if I disagree with some of their policies. Not this time.

And what I was asking for an answer to was your snarky statement that I hadn't stereotyped you correctly.

Why is it then, that when I just re-upped my insurance, I got better coverage than last year for less money?

Affordable Health Care has been a spectacular success by any metric that you apply to it.

The biggest problem was that the need and desire for it was so drastically underestimated and that it should have been a lot larger and more far-reaching than it was. Just look at the dismal failure of the states that opted to swim against the current (such as the state where I live) compared to the successes of the states that embraced it.

There will be many millions of extremely unhappy Americans when they finally recognize what "The Evil One" (aka Paul Ryan) has done to them.

Thats part of the problem, many companies were taking hundreds of millions in losses and as a result they are no longer selling plans in certain markets and raising rates in others. This leaves people with less options and insurance companies with less competition. The whole Obamacare initiative has been a yuge situation of YMMV.

Thats part of the problem, many companies were taking hundreds of millions in losses and as a result they are no longer selling plans in certain markets and raising rates in others. This leaves people with less options and insurance companies with less competition. The whole Obamacare initiative has been a yuge situation of YMMV.

Well... Obamacare is far more similar a movement to Universal Healthcare than Individual insurance sects praying on the poor and dinging medicaid.

It's the Beginning of a good thing..

Now, the Trump situation , He's not going to repel obamacare unless there's going to be something Equivalent OR Better..

You can't give people Something, then take it away.. It's like telling gays they can marry, Then be like, Oh wait No, Changed my mind, Gay's can't marry now..

Instead of answering the question? Ok. And for your information, I do know how to do it, I was just not in front of my computer.

even though we don't have ACA insurance it affects all insurance companies and their thievery. Rates, copay's and the like have gone up upon it's activation.

Why is it then, that when I just re-upped my insurance, I got better coverage than last year for less money?

Note: you might want to tone down the rhetoric too- I'm centrist, and hate bothering parties (and their candidates) equally. Both were/are corrupt and less than ideal choices. I blame the RNC and the DNC for that bit- usually there is one or the other that I can get behind even if I disagree with some of their policies. Not this time.

And what I was asking for an answer to was your snarky statement that I hadn't stereotyped you correctly.

Instead of answering the question? Ok. And for your information, I do know how to do it, I was just not in front of my computer.

even though we don't have ACA insurance it affects all insurance companies and their thievery. Rates, copay's and the like have gone up upon it's activation.

Why is it then, that when I just re-upped my insurance, I got better coverage than last year for less money?

Note: you might want to tone down the rhetoric too- I'm centrist, and hate bothering parties (and their candidates) equally. Both were/are corrupt and less than ideal choices. I blame the RNC and the DNC for that bit- usually there is one or the other that I can get behind even if I disagree with some of their policies. Not this time.

And what I was asking for an answer to was your snarky statement that I hadn't stereotyped you correctly.

Instead of answering the question? Ok. And for your information, I do know how to do it, I was just not in front of my computer.

even though we don't have ACA insurance it affects all insurance companies and their thievery. Rates, copay's and the like have gone up upon it's activation.

Why is it then, that when I just re-upped my insurance, I got better coverage than last year for less money?

Note: you might want to tone down the rhetoric too- I'm centrist, and hate bothering parties (and their candidates) equally. Both were/are corrupt and less than ideal choices. I blame the RNC and the DNC for that bit- usually there is one or the other that I can get behind even if I disagree with some of their policies. Not this time.

And what I was asking for an answer to was your snarky statement that I hadn't stereotyped you correctly.

Instead of answering the question? Ok. And for your information, I do know how to do it, I was just not in front of my computer.

even though we don't have ACA insurance it affects all insurance companies and their thievery. Rates, copay's and the like have gone up upon it's activation.

Why is it then, that when I just re-upped my insurance, I got better coverage than last year for less money?

Note: you might want to tone down the rhetoric too- I'm centrist, and hate bothering parties (and their candidates) equally. Both were/are corrupt and less than ideal choices. I blame the RNC and the DNC for that bit- usually there is one or the other that I can get behind even if I disagree with some of their policies. Not this time.

And what I was asking for an answer to was your snarky statement that I hadn't stereotyped you correctly.

What specifically seems obnoxious? Cause, I'd go the other way with that.

Of course you would your the triggered one

Triggered? In what way? Like I said, there are a few things that Trump can do that I view as a setback, but all in all, I'm not gloom and doom at him being in office. The country has survived worse, and either way it was going to be a ****show IMO.

That's exactly what I was trying to say- he thinks I'm arguing the other side, but couldn't be further from the truth.

Instead of answering the question? Ok. And for your information, I do know how to do it, I was just not in front of my computer.

even though we don't have ACA insurance it affects all insurance companies and their thievery. Rates, copay's and the like have gone up upon it's activation.

Why is it then, that when I just re-upped my insurance, I got better coverage than last year for less money?

Note: you might want to tone down the rhetoric too- I'm centrist, and hate bothering parties (and their candidates) equally. Both were/are corrupt and less than ideal choices. I blame the RNC and the DNC for that bit- usually there is one or the other that I can get behind even if I disagree with some of their policies. Not this time.

And what I was asking for an answer to was your snarky statement that I hadn't stereotyped you correctly.

What specifically seems obnoxious? Cause, I'd go the other way with that.

Of course you would your the triggered one

Triggered? In what way? Like I said, there are a few things that Trump can do that I view as a setback, but all in all, I'm not gloom and doom at him being in office. The country has survived worse, and either way it was going to be a ****show IMO.

That's exactly what I was trying to say- he thinks I'm arguing the other side, but couldn't be further from the truth.

I wouldnt bother. in the nicest way possible, i coulnt give a **** what you think. Your comments were mean considering they were directed at alienman and he has got to be the most pleasent and nicest person in this cespool.

They were not mean, nor meant to be mean. I have no idea what you're going on about- it appears that you've been 'triggered'. You know **** about me, including the fact that I got him a pretty sweet board for Summer Santa, because that's just the type of person I am. He does seem like an OK guy, but we just have different views, and his way of expressing them as this thread has gone on has been, I guess matching the tenor of the 'other side'. I just call 'em like I see 'em. But whatever, as you said, I don't care- I was just responding to your jumping in unsolicited when I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say. But too much energy spent on this. Onward! :thumb:

They were not mean, nor meant to be mean. I have no idea what you're going on about- it appears that you've been 'triggered'. You know **** about me, including the fact that I got him a pretty sweet board for Summer Santa, because that's just the type of person I am. He does seem like an OK guy, but we just have different views, and his way of expressing them as this thread has gone on has been, I guess matching the tenor of the 'other side'. I just call 'em like I see 'em. But whatever, as you said, I don't care- I was just responding to your jumping in unsolicited when I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say. But too much energy spent on this. Onward! :thumb:

Political arguments are dangerous in the sense that they reveal deeply held beliefs reflected in who or what we support politically. They have more to do with challenging who people are, what they believe, and how they think, than actual politics.

Now, if political arguments were conducted as competing arguments supported by a factual analysis, research, and civil debate, they would not result in so many butthurt, angry individuals.But our education system and culture has failed to foster such type of debate, and the anti-intellectual sentiment is strong.

By the way, the idea of right vs. left is simply designed to divide people that have mostly the same interests to gain their vote while the people we elect use our vote for their own purposes and gains. It's a false duality designed to reduce the complexity of political arguments to appeal to our natural desire for false dualities. When you start questioning the assumption that half of the voters are your opponent, you start to see the BS political system for what it is.

They were not mean, nor meant to be mean. I have no idea what you're going on about- it appears that you've been 'triggered'. You know **** about me, including the fact that I got him a pretty sweet board for Summer Santa, because that's just the type of person I am. He does seem like an OK guy, but we just have different views, and his way of expressing them as this thread has gone on has been, I guess matching the tenor of the 'other side'. I just call 'em like I see 'em. But whatever, as you said, I don't care- I was just responding to your jumping in unsolicited when I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say. But too much energy spent on this. Onward! :thumb:

wait you were my secret santa? Lol. Sweet board indeed. political discussions are a bit dangerous especially online. I don't think of you as mean, but I don't believe you're central. Maybe not a Hillary lover or a Trump lover, but you only argue against right ideas here, so I assume you are leaning left.

Not even. I want government out of my finances and out of my life. I think it should be small, and only used when needed in specific instances. I hate the tax system, and would love something like a flat tax. As a consultant, I spend too much of my time and money on taxes and accountants, when to incentivize foreign nationals, they reduce or eliminate tax liability of their businesses and income. I hate the welfare system- it's turning us into a welfare state. I could go on and on, and you'd see that specific things I argue against and for... not one way or the other, but based on that particular issue falls. And with healthcare, having a mandate forces people to take on some of their own healthcare, and hopefully gets them to take better care of themselves rather than waiting until they have stage 4 cancer to go to the doctor, and thus putting more strain on the system. That's why I support some kind of mandate. The amount of money that hospitals lose from people not having insurance and coming to the ER is pretty criminal. That's really the only thing I've argued here- unless I forget. This is getting to be a pretty long thread LOL. Given a choice between all candidates, my choice would have been more towards Ben Carson. He had some really good ideas, and was pretty much torpedoed by the MSM. I don't think he was the perfect candidate. But given the field, I don't think you could really find one.

And just for the record, I was really trying to find out what you meant by stereotyping- I thought that came out of left field, and was wondering what I might have said to engender that remark. But I don't think of anyone as ... anything, really from online discourse. Even when trying to be real, people are different than they are in personal conversations- even when trying to be snarky or mean. I think, in fact, especially during those times.

And I got as much as you did from it... I never knew anything about BS boards. I mean, I knew about them... I had several long ago- just happened to come with the computers I was using. But I didn't know anything about the internals or the types or that different years were important to the board. Thanks to you for giving me that opportunity! :)

Political arguments are dangerous in the sense that they reveal deeply held beliefs reflected in who or what we support politically. They have more to do with challenging who people are, what they believe, and how they think, than actual politics.

Now, if political arguments were conducted as competing arguments supported by a factual analysis, research, and civil debate, they would not result in so many butthurt, angry individuals.But our education system and culture has failed to foster such type of debate, and the anti-intellectual sentiment is strong.

By the way, the idea of right vs. left is simply designed to divide people that have mostly the same interests to gain their vote while the people we elect use our vote for their own purposes and gains. It's a false duality designed to reduce the complexity of political arguments to appeal to our natural desire for false dualities. When you start questioning the assumption that half of the voters are your opponent, you start to see the BS political system for what it is.

Happy Thanksgiving, fellow proles!

Preach! I like to have conversations to learn, and help to enrich myself with other views - even opposing views. But it doesn't seem that most people want to do that these days, now that we have forums to have such conversations. And that's sad.

Most of the time political discussions go south because everyone enters with a set mindset. I don't think anyone reading this thread had a change in political ideology. I try to say how I think about certain issues, how they have affected me and why. On both sides, trowing insults and blanket statements don't really mean or do anything when trying to engage with eachother.

They were not mean, nor meant to be mean. I have no idea what you're going on about- it appears that you've been 'triggered'. You know **** about me, including the fact that I got him a pretty sweet board for Summer Santa, because that's just the type of person I am. He does seem like an OK guy, but we just have different views, and his way of expressing them as this thread has gone on has been, I guess matching the tenor of the 'other side'. I just call 'em like I see 'em. But whatever, as you said, I don't care- I was just responding to your jumping in unsolicited when I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say. But too much energy spent on this. Onward! :thumb:

Cool story bro :thumb:

Didn't read.[/quote]

Wasn't for you, though you could have gotten something from it. The right person read it. :thumb:

Most of the time political discussions go south because everyone enters with a set mindset. I don't think anyone reading this thread had a change in political ideology. I try to say how I think about certain issues, how they have affected me and why. On both sides, trowing insults and blanket statements don't really mean or do anything when trying to engage with eachother.

I'd like to think that you can have a set mindset, and still be able to have a civil discussion. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but I don't think so.

Most of the time political discussions go south because everyone enters with a set mindset. I don't think anyone reading this thread had a change in political ideology. I try to say how I think about certain issues, how they have affected me and why. On both sides, trowing insults and blanket statements don't really mean or do anything when trying to engage with eachother.

I'd like to think that you can have a set mindset, and still be able to have a civil discussion. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but I don't think so.

Most of the time political discussions go south because everyone enters with a set mindset. I don't think anyone reading this thread had a change in political ideology. I try to say how I think about certain issues, how they have affected me and why. On both sides, trowing insults and blanket statements don't really mean or do anything when trying to engage with eachother.

No, Most political discussions go South, because people don't have basic understanding of economics

If they'd only ask the simple questions, who gets paid... the rational reason behind every political motive becomes clear.

Most of the time political discussions go south because everyone enters with a set mindset. I don't think anyone reading this thread had a change in political ideology. I try to say how I think about certain issues, how they have affected me and why. On both sides, trowing insults and blanket statements don't really mean or do anything when trying to engage with eachother.

I'd like to think that you can have a set mindset, and still be able to have a civil discussion. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but I don't think so.

..but it doesn't always work out that way.

I will agree with you there. In fact, I think you could remove always, and say it doesn't work that way most of the time. It's a rare online community where you can have discussions about religion, politics, etc., and have people mature enough to agree to disagree when the time comes with no acrimony, and only respect left at the end.

Most of the time political discussions go south because everyone enters with a set mindset. I don't think anyone reading this thread had a change in political ideology. I try to say how I think about certain issues, how they have affected me and why. On both sides, trowing insults and blanket statements don't really mean or do anything when trying to engage with eachother.

Exactly. I've actually picked a few things from various political discussions on the Internet. My main goal actually is to get others to challenge their assumptions and beliefs about the political system and the motivations of politicians.

where you can have discussions about religion, politics, etc., and have people mature enough to agree to disagree when the time comes with no acrimony, and only respect

At some point the irreconcilable differences become impossible to resolve amicably.

For example, perhaps my most important core belief as a human being (and member of the human race and inhabitant of the Planet Earth) is that "we are all in this together" and that the health of the planetary system, as a whole, is the paramount mandate.

My perception is that people in general fall into categories of collaborators or predators, and that the collaborators are the "good guys" and the predators are the "bad guys" so these are moral distinctions, not intellectual ones.

Pure selfishness (the writings of TP4Tissue come to mind) seems to me to be the "animal instinct" that the ascent of humanity seeks to transcend.

Therefore, when I see and hear the plans and attitudes of Trump/Bannon/Pence and the rest of their cronies, I cannot feel anything but fear and loathing, much less acrimony, and there is absolutely nothing, whatsoever, that I see there that I could possibly "respect" on any level.

Not impossible. Maybe viewed as impossible, but I have a community that I go to where it happens, all the time. And I have learned and gleaned so much from those conversations, and treasure the people on all sides of the issues. Talking in an echo chamber is rarely as satisfying as those discourses, even with people that I vehemently disagree with. And after years, I consider them as close to friends as anyone that I only have online interactions with will ever be.

And I have learned and gleaned so much from those conversations, and treasure the people on all sides of the issues.

As a general observation, I would agree with you.

However, with regard to the future Trump presidency and its cabal of perpetrators, I have never heard any hint of substantive "dialogue" that raised my knowledge, awareness, or understanding of the world, nor have I detected any intent on their part to do so.

They love to pontificate on what they plan to do, but no explanations are ever forthcoming as to the "why" or how this will improve the condition of the country and the world.

The exchange of ideas occurs in the discussions and explanations, and these have been painfully conspicuous in their absence.

And I have learned and gleaned so much from those conversations, and treasure the people on all sides of the issues.

As a general observation, I would agree with you.

However, with regard to the future Trump presidency and its cabal of perpetrators, I have never heard any hint of substantive "dialogue" that raised my knowledge, awareness, or understanding of the world, nor have I detected any intent on their part to do so.

They love to pontificate on what they plan to do, but no explanations are ever forthcoming as to the "why" or how this will improve the condition of the country and the world.

The exchange of ideas occurs in the discussions and explanations, and these have been painfully conspicuous in their absence.

watch fox news for a week. I double dare you

In my opinion, all MSM is pretty much the echo chamber that I talked about. Talk radio used to be my way of getting news, but Neal Boortz is off the air, and I haven't been able to find a suitable replacement, and I can't get WSB where I moved, so I've had to move online to find anything. I miss Royal Marshall from his show... RIP. I love to listen to news where they are critical and analytical- and most (all) of the TV just has too much bias showing.

I have been subjected to that TV station at my father-in-law's house for the past few days.

It is the most mindless and inane pig**** that I have ever heard, even worse than it was in years past when I have heard it before.

Joseph Geobbels would be profoundly gratified.

well there isn't much I can stand on CNN...

It's basically every citizen best interest to not pay attention to television or radio "news", regardless of whether you think it supports your viewpoint. All of these "news" sources are designed to capture a reliable audience so they can sell that viewership or listenership to advertisers and keep a steady profit. They have very little interest in providing accurate news, great analysis, or generally quality journalism. The level of analysis is rarely better than anything you can find a short article. If you listen or watch these sources regularly, they invade your way into your brain and affect your way of thinking, often leaving you angry and hating on some Other or spacegoat.

Do yourself a favor and stop watching TV news, or listening to talk radio, and replace all that with reading long-form articles from sources that are not propaganda and still practice journalistic integrity. You'll be more knowledgeable, improve your understanding and analysis of events, feel smarter, be able to have better discussions, and probably not be so pissed off at some Other.

A recount is a legal, democratic process. While I am a bit worried that billionaire and Democratic supportrr George Soros is potentially behind this, I hope the results do not significantly change as a testament to the accuracy of the process and to disprove bogus claims of widespread voter fraud.

What worries me more is that the president-elect makes wild, unsubstantiated claims on social media without any evidence whatsoever, tens of millions of Americans eat it up without questioning, and it's all used as a distraction from whatever nonsense he is doing in the meantime (e.g. more questionable Cabinet appointments).

The recount is ridiculous. It will be like the FBI, especially the 2nd time around: "Uh, sorry, still nothing there."

There are so many things that need attention: Russia, fake charities, countless violations of election law, innumerable conflicts of interest - before you even get to the true horribleness of what Ryan and his cronies plan to do that is in direct conflict with the will of 80% of the people of the country.

And it will take at least a couple of years for Trump's supporters to finally accept that he will not be bringing back any jobs.

Yes, it's a distraction, that is for sure. The cult of personality and culture is strong with some Trump supporters, I do not believe that if he does not deliver, his supporters will flee. Listen to conservative TV, radio, and read the websites, and the whole purpose is to make people angry at liberals, the left, or whatever. If you constantly expose yourself to that message, you will do anything to vote against the left, even if the people you vote for are con artists that use your support to advance their own interests.

Even if factories start magically reviving and popping up in the Rust Belt, they will be heavily automated with a fraction of the employees they used to employ and require skilled workers with proper training and education. New factories are not a place where everybody and their brother can land a job and be thrown on the line with minimal training.

Believing that Trump can revive the dead and dying factory and farm towns of Middle America is akin to a a Hail Mary pass at the end of a football game. It might work, but the odds are very slim. I have lived here and traveled here my whole life, I've watched these places decline further even in my lifetime; they do not turnaround in four years.

Were you joking about the drug addict part? I don't think someone who regularly shoots up could still be alive at 83.

I don't think Trump is as bad as the news media makes him look. Trump talks big but he doesn't have a record of invasions and foreign interventions unlike Hillary. I suspect a president Hillary would be very good at saying the right thing to the media, but would continue the policies of invasions and bombings that I dislike so much.

Were you joking about the drug addict part? I don't think someone who regularly shoots up could still be alive at 83.

I don't think Trump is as bad as the news media makes him look. Trump talks big but he doesn't have a record of invasions and foreign interventions unlike Hillary. I suspect a president Hillary would be very good at saying the right thing to the media, but would continue the policies of invasions and bombings that I dislike so much.

And that the describes the major dilemma of the election for many people.

Trump is as bad as he makes himself out to be. The latest is claims of widespread voter fraud via Twitter without any evidence whatsoever. So he tweets conspiracy theories on social media like your idiot relatives or friends from high school, probably to distract from more substantive issues with his transition. Your next president, people.

What scares me the most is all the historians that describe the similarities between the current political climate with our elected/appointed officials and previous governments that have lurched towards autocracy.

What scares me the most is all the historians that describe the similarities between the current political climate with our elected/appointed officials and previous governments that have lurched towards autocracy.

Hillary won't have become a dictator, but that is because she is too indebted to the many parties that have supported her. Such as big businesses, the Washington elite, foreign politicians, minority interests. These people will also make it hard for her to pursue an independent policy freed from old baggage.

And that the describes the major dilemma of the election for many people.

Trump is as bad as he makes himself out to be. The latest is claims of widespread voter fraud via Twitter without any evidence whatsoever. So he tweets conspiracy theories on social media like your idiot relatives or friends from high school, probably to distract from more substantive issues with his transition. Your next president, people.

What scares me the most is all the historians that describe the similarities between the current political climate with our elected/appointed officials and previous governments that have lurched towards autocracy.

[/quote]

I of course think that the media's caricature of trump is probably a bit overblown. However I agree that Trump's image depends on how he makes it. There was an interesting thread on Reddit saying that Trump's campaign/public image is outlined in entirety in Ahe Art of the Deal. Basically that any publicity good or bad is good pablicity. I'm not really a Trump supporter but I am CERTAIN that he'll mellow out and wont declare WWIII or something

Here's an interesting perspective on where Trump might be going with all the constant blatent lies. Basically, don't fool yourself into thinking this presidency is about anything more than power, control, adulation, and self advancement. He will throw out a few bones to keep the populist appeal, but that is a deliberate strategy to maintain support and power. He uses classic political strategy, but to a greater degree than what I have seen before in this country, and only read about in other countries.

Here's an interesting perspective on where Trump might be going with all the constant blatent lies. Basically, don't fool yourself into thinking this presidency is about anything more than power, control, adulation, and self advancement. He will throw out a few bones to keep the populist appeal, but that is a deliberate strategy to maintain support and power. He uses classic political strategy, but to a greater degree than what I have seen before in this country, and only read about in other countries.

Here's an interesting perspective on where Trump might be going with all the constant blatent lies. Basically, don't fool yourself into thinking this presidency is about anything more than power, control, adulation, and self advancement. He will throw out a few bones to keep the populist appeal, but that is a deliberate strategy to maintain support and power. He uses classic political strategy, but to a greater degree than what I have seen before in this country, and only read about in other countries.

Here's an interesting perspective on where Trump might be going with all the constant blatent lies. Basically, don't fool yourself into thinking this presidency is about anything more than power, control, adulation, and self advancement. He will throw out a few bones to keep the populist appeal, but that is a deliberate strategy to maintain support and power. He uses classic political strategy, but to a greater degree than what I have seen before in this country, and only read about in other countries.

Me too. I never thought that it could ever even happen at all, but this is turning out far worse than I would have imagined it could.

The idea that he would select the biggest fattest ugliest alligators in the country to populate his swamp should not be surprising since he is a pathological liar and only cares about wealthy people, but the White Supremacist/Radical Religious thing really blindsided me. During the campaign I thought that he was just talking that trash to stir up the haters.

There are more than enough smoking guns to derail his ascent: campaign law violations, conflicts of interest, foreign money, lawsuits, ineligible appointments, Putin, security breaches, the list could go on. But who is there to initiate and follow through with the process?

Me too. I never thought that it could ever even happen at all, but this is turning out far worse than I would have imagined it could.

The idea that he would select the biggest fattest ugliest alligators in the country to populate his swamp should not be surprising since he is a pathological liar and only cares about wealthy people, but the White Supremacist/Radical Religious thing really blindsided me. During the campaign I thought that he was just talking that trash to stir up the haters.

There are more than enough smoking guns to derail his ascent: campaign law violations, conflicts of interest, foreign money, lawsuits, ineligible appointments, Putin, security breaches, the list could go on. But who is there to initiate and follow through with the process?

That's ridiculous..

What you are blinded by is not the Trump Reality..

It's the candy coated one you've lived in your whole life.

EVERY person of power work through lots and lots of MUCK, to get to where they are, and to stay where they are..

There's never been any exception to this..

As for racism.. our biology makes us naturally "racist" to some degree, through kin-selection..

More or less would then later depend on intellect and purpose..

The majority of nazis didn't think they were better than jews, or that jews were somehow different but the party at the time needed someone to blame to unite the public.

It's unlikely this would happen again in that fashion, because hey America needs all the soldiers it can produce..

So Obama is having a press conference tomorrow....word on the street is he will be announcing a delay in the transition to President-Elect Trump because of the Russian hacking :eek:

Thanks for bumping the thread. Let's get the band back togrther!

I'm assuming that means the inauguration date would be moved back, which is unconstitutional. It would cause an uproar. Check out the 20th amendment. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx)

The amount of times that the United States has intervened in the elections and politics of other countries is basically off the charts, whether by force or covertly. Now all of our politicians are getting their panties in a bunch because some other country may have finally influenced our election. Bunch of hypocrites, we are.

The amount of times that the United States has intervened in the elections and politics of other countries is basically off the charts, whether by force or covertly. Now all of our politicians are getting their panties in a bunch because some other country may have finally influenced our election. Bunch of hypocrites, we are.

The Democrats are always portraying themselves as good guys, but it seems all the hating so far has been on Trump. The news is totally one sided and very fanatical and alarmist.

Also, the Democrats haven't tried to win over the Trump supporters. Democrats seem to keep dismissing their concerns and are happy to stereotype them as a bunch of racist hicks. If New York is doing well, they don't care about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania's bad economy. These guys can starve or go to hell.

Hating on white working people is also racism, but Democrats refuse to accept that. To them white people are only privileged racists, and never victims.

The Democrats haven't shown any more respect for the Republicans than the other way round. They don't want to accept that in many people's eyes, homosexuality and transexuality is wrong. If you took a world vote, most people everywhere would say no to gays. Including the Arab Muslims and Catholic Mexicans that democrats love.

So when democrats want to impose their gay rights on Republicans, Republicans find it unpalatable. The same would go for many other policies that Democrats like and Republicans hate. For example, amnesty for 11 million illegal immigrants, unlimited entry to Muslims, taking in millions of Syrians, that kind of stuff. Most countries in the world would think that is totally crazy. Even Saudi Arabia is very restrictive on Muslim entry and doesn't accept any Syrian refugees. Now Democrats love that, that's fine. But if people who share your country object, I don't think it makes them monsters and madmen. If you start shouting Fascist and Racist at them, eventually they tune you out and only appoint their own people to political posts who ignore everything you say.

Because Democrats have created so much hysteria and lowered expectations so much, as long as Trump doesn't start a nuclear war on 20 January 2017 he will already be better than what most Democrats claim and everyone should be happy.

I wasn't referencing the Democrats in particular, as many Republicans have voiced their concerns with the alleged Russian hacking.

By making broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them, you basically are doing the same thing as the people you are criticizing. That does not make for a very convincing or effective argument.

The amount of times that the United States has intervened in the elections and politics of other countries is basically off the charts, whether by force or covertly. Now all of our politicians are getting their panties in a bunch because some other country may have finally influenced our election. Bunch of hypocrites, we are.

Who influences whom is merely a matter of Perspective..

The earth revolves around the sun.. Yes, but the solar system goes around the giant black hole at the center of our galaxy..

So, is the sun making us do what we do, or is it the black hole..

Everything that YOU BELIEVE exists in the middle, and that belief has so little to do with what actually happens, because everything outside of belief is so many orders of magnitude larger.

There is no true Unity of Aim outside of universal laws such as entropy..

There is nothing funny about that. I am being dead serious. We are facing the hardest, biggest challenge in the history of mankind - the very real possibility of the destruction of the biosphere that we depend on, that sustains us, that everything we have is based on, without we have nothing, and the US president elect - the most powerful man in the world, is a giant douche going the wrong way.

It's so cool when people use "left" and "right" to throw shade on another person's perspective. Why bother thinking beyond simple binaries? Like, shut up and pour me another glass of that Corpis Christi tap water... All I understand is some simple formulaic single-minded ideology.

Cleaning up the planet and ensuring the human species has a future in this universe is sooooo left, what dweeb. Who would be concerned about that?

The 26% of eligible US voters who propelled the Orange Hitler into office may have (the jury is still out, of course, and it will take months or years or decades to know) precipitated a set of global disasters of colossal magnitude on multiple fronts.

There is nothing funny about that. I am being dead serious. We are facing the hardest, biggest challenge in the history of mankind - the very real possibility of the destruction of the biosphere that we depend on, that sustains us, that everything we have is based on, without we have nothing, and the US president elect - the most powerful man in the world, is a giant douche going the wrong way.

That is not left or right. That is a fact.

You guys are being childish.

It's not the PRESIDENT doing all these things..

It's all of us.. Driving everywhere.. eating animals at every meal.. playing video games.. Using cellphones..

Just as HE did not cause these problems, He himself is also not the solution..

You want to change.. make money.. buy into political office.. Change..

The 26% of eligible US voters who propelled the Orange Hitler into office may have (the jury is still out, of course, and it will take months or years or decades to know) precipitated a set of global disasters of colossal magnitude on multiple fronts.

We can only hope that the Einstein quote proves true.

Can we not try to leverage this backwards logic? If reversed, it can also be said that only ~26.6% of eligible US voters voted for Hillary Clinton. While I am at it, might as well throw a half-assed claim that her victory in popular vote was entirely decided by the state of California.

It's so inconvenient to have to face up to the fact that Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin in the history of the nation. But, yeah, it was only all those welfare-check havin' beatniks in California. All 2.9 million of them (and rising). Who cares about the will of the people anyway? This is America.

It's so inconvenient to have to face up to the fact that Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin in the history of the nation. But, yeah, it was only all those welfare-check havin' beatniks in California. All 2.9 million of them (and rising). Who cares about the will of the people anyway? This is America.

It's the largest margin by anyone that has lost the electoral college. Get your facts straight..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

It's so inconvenient to have to face up to the fact that Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin in the history of the nation. But, yeah, it was only all those welfare-check havin' beatniks in California. All 2.9 million of them (and rising). Who cares about the will of the people anyway? This is America.

This is the United STATES of America. The Electoral College isn't perfect but it does give more fair representation to states with smaller populations and balances out the distribution of popular votes. I can see the argument with swing states possibly deciding an election but the popular vote largely favors urban areas. Also, the statement about California was largely sarcastic. There are a million "what-ifs" but even having every California voter be pro-Hillary, the electoral results would still be the same and there would be a ~4 million vote swing for Clinton.

@Alienman82 I have tried to chill out since the election and the last time this thread was bumped :)

By making broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them, ... the same thing as the people you are criticizing.

All I needed was for you to admit this.

I'm not saying Trump is a great guy.

I am saying that the democrats aren't great guys and don't deserve our sympathy.

Clinton could have done things like address the concerns of white working class voters especially in the economically poor northern states that swung to Trump. She did not show that level of care, and stereotyped and labelled these people. She spent all her time pandering to blacks, hispanics and Muslims. She thought that as long as she won the minority vote, white people would automatically vote her way to avoid being labelled racist.

This is the result. Hillary deserved to lose. Bush barely won Florida, but Trump took Florida by a big margin. Arizona is a third Hispanic most of whom are recent immigrants from Mexico, but Trump took it anyway despite his wall-building comments.

After election is over for a month the media is still full of shrill commentary about Trump voters being ignorant and dumb racists. Clearly unlike you, the experienced editors and famous op-ed writers think that making these "broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them" makes for "very effective and convincing arguments." Michael Moore does it all the time, and his democrat supporters lap it up.

New York Times op eds, has this article by Ariel Dorfman: Now America, You Know How Chileans felt. The CIA overthrew Allende to install Pinochet. Now CIA is claiming that Russia interfered in USA election. After decades of messing with other people's political systems, if you don't know how to protect your own election then you are a fool. CIA could have figured out Russian meddling before the election and taken appropriate steps instead of whining when their preferred candidate didn't win.

If Trump's side lost and the CIA reported Russian hacking, the Republicans would have probably blamed the Russians. And it would be the Democrats dismissing these claims, saying that US election was fair and Russians had no impact.

Although the press thinks Trump is the world's greatest bigot since Hitler, Trump is well known to love New York City. He has lived in NYC all his life despite non-Hispanic white people being a minority.

In contrast, Clinton chose to move out of places with many black people. She lives in Chappaqua, where nearly the entire population is white, with blacks and Hispanics at under 1% each.

So the 'racist Republican' is the one who lives among mostly nonwhite people all the time. The 'good democrat' is the commuter who lives in a lily white suburb where the real estate values can stay up because there are no black or hispanic people. I am supposed to be convinced that Hillary is not racist?

By making broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them, ... the same thing as the people you are criticizing.

All I needed was for you to admit this.

I'm not saying Trump is a great guy.

I am saying that the democrats aren't great guys and don't deserve our sympathy.

Clinton could have done things like address the concerns of white working class voters especially in the economically poor northern states that swung to Trump. She did not show that level of care, and stereotyped and labelled these people. She spent all her time pandering to blacks, hispanics and Muslims. She thought that as long as she won the minority vote, white people would automatically vote her way to avoid being labelled racist.

This is the result. Hillary deserved to lose. Bush barely won Florida, but Trump took Florida by a big margin. Arizona is a third Hispanic most of whom are recent immigrants from Mexico, but Trump took it anyway despite his wall-building comments.

After election is over for a month the media is still full of shrill commentary about Trump voters being ignorant and dumb racists. Clearly unlike you, the experienced editors and famous op-ed writers think that making these "broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them" makes for "very effective and convincing arguments." Michael Moore does it all the time, and his democrat supporters lap it up.

New York Times op eds, has this article by Ariel Dorfman: Now America, You Know How Chileans felt. The CIA overthrew Allende to install Pinochet. Now CIA is claiming that Russia interfered in USA election. After decades of messing with other people's political systems, if you don't know how to protect your own election then you are a fool. CIA could have figured out Russian meddling before the election and taken appropriate steps instead of whining when their preferred candidate didn't win.

If Trump's side lost and the CIA reported Russian hacking, the Republicans would have probably blamed the Russians. And it would be the Democrats dismissing these claims, saying that US election was fair and Russians had no impact.

Although the press thinks Trump is the world's greatest bigot since Hitler, Trump is well known to love New York City. He has lived in NYC all his life despite non-Hispanic white people being a minority.

In contrast, Clinton chose to move out of places with many black people. She lives in Chappaqua, where nearly the entire population is white, with blacks and Hispanics at under 1% each.

So the 'racist Republican' is the one who lives among mostly nonwhite people all the time. The 'good democrat' is the commuter who lives in a lily white suburb where the real estate values can stay up because there are no black or hispanic people. I am supposed to be convinced that Hillary is not racist?

I like your energy

Lies.. you didn't read it..

Just like I don't read this stuff.....

Because they're dim witted enough to post in such length on the internet.

That is clear indication of their low intelligence, and comprehension of the medium..

By making broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them, ... the same thing as the people you are criticizing.

All I needed was for you to admit this.

I'm not saying Trump is a great guy.

I am saying that the democrats aren't great guys and don't deserve our sympathy.

Clinton could have done things like address the concerns of white working class voters especially in the economically poor northern states that swung to Trump. She did not show that level of care, and stereotyped and labelled these people. She spent all her time pandering to blacks, hispanics and Muslims. She thought that as long as she won the minority vote, white people would automatically vote her way to avoid being labelled racist.

This is the result. Hillary deserved to lose. Bush barely won Florida, but Trump took Florida by a big margin. Arizona is a third Hispanic most of whom are recent immigrants from Mexico, but Trump took it anyway despite his wall-building comments.

After election is over for a month the media is still full of shrill commentary about Trump voters being ignorant and dumb racists. Clearly unlike you, the experienced editors and famous op-ed writers think that making these "broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them" makes for "very effective and convincing arguments." Michael Moore does it all the time, and his democrat supporters lap it up.

New York Times op eds, has this article by Ariel Dorfman: Now America, You Know How Chileans felt. The CIA overthrew Allende to install Pinochet. Now CIA is claiming that Russia interfered in USA election. After decades of messing with other people's political systems, if you don't know how to protect your own election then you are a fool. CIA could have figured out Russian meddling before the election and taken appropriate steps instead of whining when their preferred candidate didn't win.

If Trump's side lost and the CIA reported Russian hacking, the Republicans would have probably blamed the Russians. And it would be the Democrats dismissing these claims, saying that US election was fair and Russians had no impact.

Although the press thinks Trump is the world's greatest bigot since Hitler, Trump is well known to love New York City. He has lived in NYC all his life despite non-Hispanic white people being a minority.

In contrast, Clinton chose to move out of places with many black people. She lives in Chappaqua, where nearly the entire population is white, with blacks and Hispanics at under 1% each.

So the 'racist Republican' is the one who lives among mostly nonwhite people all the time. The 'good democrat' is the commuter who lives in a lily white suburb where the real estate values can stay up because there are no black or hispanic people. I am supposed to be convinced that Hillary is not racist?

I like your energy

Lies.. you didn't read it..

Just like I don't read this stuff.....

Because they're dim witted enough to post in such length on the internet.

That is clear indication of their low intelligence, and comprehension of the medium..

By making broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them, ... the same thing as the people you are criticizing.

All I needed was for you to admit this.

I'm not saying Trump is a great guy.

I am saying that the democrats aren't great guys and don't deserve our sympathy.

Clinton could have done things like address the concerns of white working class voters especially in the economically poor northern states that swung to Trump. She did not show that level of care, and stereotyped and labelled these people. She spent all her time pandering to blacks, hispanics and Muslims. She thought that as long as she won the minority vote, white people would automatically vote her way to avoid being labelled racist.

This is the result. Hillary deserved to lose. Bush barely won Florida, but Trump took Florida by a big margin. Arizona is a third Hispanic most of whom are recent immigrants from Mexico, but Trump took it anyway despite his wall-building comments.

After election is over for a month the media is still full of shrill commentary about Trump voters being ignorant and dumb racists. Clearly unlike you, the experienced editors and famous op-ed writers think that making these "broad, sweeping generalizations about large groups of people and placing labels upon them" makes for "very effective and convincing arguments." Michael Moore does it all the time, and his democrat supporters lap it up.

New York Times op eds, has this article by Ariel Dorfman: Now America, You Know How Chileans felt. The CIA overthrew Allende to install Pinochet. Now CIA is claiming that Russia interfered in USA election. After decades of messing with other people's political systems, if you don't know how to protect your own election then you are a fool. CIA could have figured out Russian meddling before the election and taken appropriate steps instead of whining when their preferred candidate didn't win.

If Trump's side lost and the CIA reported Russian hacking, the Republicans would have probably blamed the Russians. And it would be the Democrats dismissing these claims, saying that US election was fair and Russians had no impact.

Although the press thinks Trump is the world's greatest bigot since Hitler, Trump is well known to love New York City. He has lived in NYC all his life despite non-Hispanic white people being a minority.

In contrast, Clinton chose to move out of places with many black people. She lives in Chappaqua, where nearly the entire population is white, with blacks and Hispanics at under 1% each.

So the 'racist Republican' is the one who lives among mostly nonwhite people all the time. The 'good democrat' is the commuter who lives in a lily white suburb where the real estate values can stay up because there are no black or hispanic people. I am supposed to be convinced that Hillary is not racist?

I did not admit anything, I only made an observation about your statements. You really just like to push your viewpoints about how much you don't like Hillary and the Democrats.

But your strategy is effective, you're basically making stuff up or distorting facts to push your viewpoint, which makes an actual discussion impossible. Unfortunately, this style of argument is quite popular these days and many people are entranced by it. A consequence of an era in which we are so saturated with information, that the truth can be glossed as we move on to the next topic that justifies our viewpoints.

It's so inconvenient to have to face up to the fact that Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin in the history of the nation. But, yeah, it was only all those welfare-check havin' beatniks in California. All 2.9 million of them (and rising). Who cares about the will of the people anyway? This is America.

This is the United STATES of America. The Electoral College isn't perfect but it does give more fair representation to states with smaller populations and balances out the distribution of popular votes. I can see the argument with swing states possibly deciding an election but the popular vote largely favors urban areas. Also, the statement about California was largely sarcastic. There are a million "what-ifs" but even having every California voter be pro-Hillary, the electoral results would still be the same and there would be a ~4 million vote swing for Clinton.

@Alienman82 I have tried to chill out since the election and the last time this thread was bumped :)

I hear this viewpoint about the electoral college quite a bit, and it is a falsehood. The electoral college allows the parties to craft their platforms to appeal to a small subset of swing voters in 10 or less states because those are the voters that decide elections these days. Trump did a better of job of that this time around. I recommend checking out the two videos below and let them do the explaining.

Basically the vote of a person is not influential if they did not vote for the winner of a state. A popular vote allows votes that are not in the majority in a state to influence the election, including within small states. Perhaps voter turnout would be higher with a popular vote, as people might feel their vote will matter more. The Republican Party has won ONE popular vote since 1992 (W in 2004). Seven elections, one popular vote win. They know that they cannot win anymore without gerrymandering, without the electoral college, without low voter turnout, without swing states. But facts don't matter anymore, so why do I bother.

The entire inauguration felt like a goddamn church sermon, how many ****ing times do they need to bring up God and have yet another decrepit out of touch cardinal or priest talk more religious sanctimonious bull****?And what the actual **** is with his cabinet choices? It's like the League Of Evil over here, this is absurd and surreal the rogues gallery that is being put into power right now.

What a complete ****show this entire election was from both sides: Dems putting up a completely unlikable robot criminal, and the Reps putting up a racist misogynist with zero political experience. Then one wins by literally rigging the election process and everyone is just cool with it. Absolutely absurd, and yet all the upset people still just sit around with their thumbs up their asses not doing **** to change anything. Just roll over and ****ing die America.

The entire inauguration felt like a goddamn church sermon, how many ****ing times do they need to bring up God and have yet another decrepit out of touch cardinal or priest talk more religious sanctimonious bull****?And what the actual **** is with his cabinet choices? It's like the League Of Evil over here, this is absurd and surreal the rogues gallery that is being put into power right now.

What a complete ****show this entire election was from both sides: Dems putting up a completely unlikable robot criminal, and the Reps putting up a racist misogynist with zero political experience. Then one wins by literally rigging the election process and everyone is just cool with it. Absolutely absurd, and yet all the upset people still just sit around with their thumbs up their asses not doing **** to change anything. Just roll over and ****ing die America.

I was waiting for someone to revive this thread today. Voted for the guy, but damn it will be a whole lot easier if these next four years aren't a continual ****-show.

I'm allowed to express my opinion my dude, all i hope is trump doesnt go through with the free trade thing otherwise hes going to put my father out of a job that hes had for a long time and get rid of an opening of a job for myself in the future after i recover from cancer, and my mom is disabled so she cant work either.

[A]ll i hope is trump doesnt go through with the free trade thing otherwise hes going to put my father out of a job that hes had for a long time and get rid of an opening of a job for myself in the future after i recover from cancer, and my mom is disabled so she cant work either.

I understand your concern. I think that sentiment is one of the reasons voters in the US put Trump in office. The so-called forgotten men and women Trump spoke to were tired of stagnant wages (if they still had jobs), underemployment, and degraded occupations, while they heard pontifications about the unemployment rate dropping to record lows; numbers that don't account for those who finally gave up and left the workforce.

tired of stagnant wages (if they still had jobs), underemployment, and degraded occupations

Precisely the things that Trump has absolutely no power to change, even if he had the will to do so.

The forces of globalization have been entrenched since the 1970s, and have continue to escalate and accelerate. Slapping protectionist and isolationist policies on US trade now will be counterproductive in the extreme. The only way to slow or reverse the flow of money and jobs out of the US would be to incentivize keeping them here. Unfortunately, most of the damage has long since been done, and you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.

I understand your concern. I think that sentiment is one of the reasons voters in the US put Trump in office. The so-called forgotten men and women Trump spoke to were tired of stagnant wages (if they still had jobs), underemployment, and degraded occupations, while they heard pontifications about the unemployment rate dropping to record lows; numbers that don't account for those who finally gave up and left the workforce.

Unfortunately, although he might be able to bring some of those jobs back, the march of progress won't be stopped. The vast majority of those jobs weren't lost to outsourcing or foreign companies, but rather automation. And that's going to increase. If Middle America thinks it's been hit hard already, they ain't seen nothing yet. We're going to see a loss of jobs here to AI in the next 8-10 years that will be staggering.

For the people that voted for him, Trump is a tourniquet. But (to continue the metaphor), the bleeding can't be stopped, only slowed.

Meanwhile Ryan and Pence will be doing everything in their power to strip away Social Security, Medicare, and all other forms of health and social relief, while DeVos eviscerates the educational system and Wall Street is freed to run amok again.

And what the actual **** is with his cabinet choices? It's like the League Of Evil over here, this is absurd and surreal the rogues gallery that is being put into power right now.

And these are the exact same types of people he derided Clinton for taking money from. Billionaires and Wall Street insiders. He's not draining the swamp he's actively plugging the drain so more crap floats to the top.

Although the Constitution was structured to ensure civilian oversight of the military, you need look no further than Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to see that Republican appointments tend to be ideological-based rather than experience-based.

Although I am no hawk, I do believe that the military knows and understands the military better than civilians do, in general. And, although they may always strive to "win" they are nonetheless more mindful of limitations and reality. And also, cognizant of the horrors of violating international conventions such as prohibitions against torture.

What's truly horrifying is that the President has been elected so time to now get behind and support him but we get this deluded fenzy led by the Far Left, screaming and kicking at their loss in the election and are now pushing for rioting across the United States.

That is not only criminal on every front but indeed nasty in being the most spoiled losing trashbags ever, would rather that they destroy the United States instead of accepting the citizens votes. Never before have I ever witnessed such a bunch of irrational sicko's led by the mass-media to literally break up the US because their Democratic Messiah Hillary, lost the election.

The worst thing here is that with all of this stupefying hatred of someone who hasn't sat more than a day in office, is that some psychopathic cretin, (which unfortunately are lot of in your country), not trying to insult anyone here but those are the people who think they will become famous by attempting to kill a US President. Those are the ones desperate for attention and we have this sick and twisted mass-media promoting outright destabilization of your country.

Can understand if after four years your country collapses under it's own weight of arrogance and ignominy BUT isn't it decent to allow anyone to do his work first otherwise you become a pathetic Far Left branch of the Democratic Party trying to still gain power illegitimately even if it means blood on the streets.

Remember Hillary was racing around your nation proclaiming to everyone who would listen she wanted to take back Crimea (which was never hers to own in the first place) and you think that it would happen without Russia allowing it. We narrowly avoided a real 3rd World War here yet the morons are out on the street burning cars and screaming about it NOT happening? Thank gawd most normal Americans saw the light here and would rather enjoy 4 years of peace instead of outright obliteration.

First allow Trump to work as the "President" before like moronic tossers, continue kicking and screaming all the way for nothing. Wait till four years are up and I bet most of these same ignorant people who have jobs and a secure future would then cast their next vote for either more of the same or the Far Left's version of insanity on a Global Scale.

What's truly horrifying is that the President has been elected so time to now get behind and support him but we get this deluded fenzy led by the Far Left, screaming and kicking at their loss in the election and are now pushing for rioting across the United States.

That is not only criminal on every front but indeed nasty in being the most spoiled losing trashbags ever, would rather that they destroy the United States instead of accepting the citizens votes. Never before have I ever witnessed such a bunch of irrational sicko's led by the mass-media to literally break up the US because their Democratic Messiah Hillary, lost the election.

The worst thing here is that with all of this stupefying hatred of someone who hasn't sat more than a day in office, is that some psychopathic cretin, (which unfortunately are lot of in your country), not trying to insult anyone here but those are the people who think they will become famous by attempting to kill a US President. Those are the ones desperate for attention and we have this sick and twisted mass-media promoting outright destabilization of your country.

Can understand if after four years your country collapses under it's own weight of arrogance and ignominy BUT isn't it decent to allow anyone to do his work first otherwise you become a pathetic Far Left branch of the Democratic Party trying to still gain power illegitimately even if it means blood on the streets.

Remember Hillary was racing around your nation proclaiming to everyone who would listen she wanted to take back Crimea (which was never hers to own in the first place) and you think that it would happen without Russia allowing it. We narrowly avoided a real 3rd World War here yet the morons are out on the street burning cars and screaming about it NOT happening? Thank gawd most normal Americans saw the light here and would rather enjoy 4 years of peace instead of outright obliteration.

First allow Trump to work as the "President" before like moronic tossers, continue kicking and screaming all the way for nothing. Wait till four years are up and I bet most of these same ignorant people who have jobs and a secure future would then cast their next vote for either more of the same or the Far Left's version of insanity on a Global Scale.

This is some straight up crazy talk, "most americans" voted against Trump. There were protests when Obama won and people continued to harass him for the duration of his presidency over being a "secret muslim" or Kenyan and that he was going to take away everyone's guns. There is no extreme leftist conspiracy at work here. Trump has in the very recent past made extremely sexist remarks and in the more distant past fought to keep literal institutionalized racism in place. His cabinet have already come out and yelled at the media and when presented with facts they shouted over people and then presented what they called "alternative facts". Facts are facts in that there is no alternative. Hillary was a terrible candidate and she lost, there is no point in arguing about it. What you can do is make sure to constantly remind the current president what the people of his country want from him. You do this by protesting, talking to your elected representatives and so on, it's a normal part of democracy. He can continue to act as president as the protest will literally not interfere with his operations from the whitehouse, it's not like they're in the living room. Part of being a head of state is constantly bearing whatever criticism people have and then continuig on to do your duty as head of that state. If you are unable to bear that sort of criticism and level of attention on everything you do do not sign up for the job.

What's truly horrifying is that the President has been elected so time to now get behind and support him but we get this deluded fenzy led by the Far Left, screaming and kicking at their loss in the election and are now pushing for rioting across the United States.

That is not only criminal on every front but indeed nasty in being the most spoiled losing trashbags ever, would rather that they destroy the United States instead of accepting the citizens votes. Never before have I ever witnessed such a bunch of irrational sicko's led by the mass-media to literally break up the US because their Democratic Messiah Hillary, lost the election.

The worst thing here is that with all of this stupefying hatred of someone who hasn't sat more than a day in office, is that some psychopathic cretin, (which unfortunately are lot of in your country), not trying to insult anyone here but those are the people who think they will become famous by attempting to kill a US President. Those are the ones desperate for attention and we have this sick and twisted mass-media promoting outright destabilization of your country.

Can understand if after four years your country collapses under it's own weight of arrogance and ignominy BUT isn't it decent to allow anyone to do his work first otherwise you become a pathetic Far Left branch of the Democratic Party trying to still gain power illegitimately even if it means blood on the streets.

Remember Hillary was racing around your nation proclaiming to everyone who would listen she wanted to take back Crimea (which was never hers to own in the first place) and you think that it would happen without Russia allowing it. We narrowly avoided a real 3rd World War here yet the morons are out on the street burning cars and screaming about it NOT happening? Thank gawd most normal Americans saw the light here and would rather enjoy 4 years of peace instead of outright obliteration.

First allow Trump to work as the "President" before like moronic tossers, continue kicking and screaming all the way for nothing. Wait till four years are up and I bet most of these same ignorant people who have jobs and a secure future would then cast their next vote for either more of the same or the Far Left's version of insanity on a Global Scale.

wow... bunch of people showed up to protest in liberal strongholds ... I for one am SHOCKED.. The coastal elites don't give a f*** about middle America, that is where Trump won, These areas have been rocked by years of decline.. a lot of his supporters can no longer afford to come to Washington for the inauguration..

and what is it about starbucks that makes anarchists want to trash them??? If it was still open would have been a good place to get a beverage / and or pee during said protest...

wow... bunch of people showed up to protest in liberal strongholds ... I for one am SHOCKED.. The coastal elites don't give a f*** about middle America, that is where Trump won, These areas have been rocked by years of decline.. a lot of his supporters can no longer afford to come to Washington for the inauguration..

and what is it about starbucks that makes anarchists want to trash them??? If it was still open would have been a good place to get a beverage / and or pee during said protest...

And do you not think it's ironic that he's now filling his cabinet with those coastal elites?

Starbucks is seen as an icon of capitalism. It's a natural first target by so called anarchists.

wow... bunch of people showed up to protest in liberal strongholds ... I for one am SHOCKED.. The coastal elites don't give a f*** about middle America, that is where Trump won, These areas have been rocked by years of decline.. a lot of his supporters can no longer afford to come to Washington for the inauguration..

This is the widespread reality of America.

The tiny but powerful few who had tried to help Hillary to grab power, yet failed dismally. They still see nothing wrong in their decision to encourage widespread panic with the moronic few because let's face it, most will do anything what the elites want them to with little to no understanding of why they are doing it.

The elites just witnessed a rebuke to their influence and are trying their best to tear it all down and burn everything as a final salute to those that voted for Trump. Like I said before wait till the end of four years when actual industry starts picking up because the elites will have a far harder time in trying to paint Trump as some kind of monster, when MILLIONS of Americans find new jobs under his term of leadership. Maybe the Mass-media will still ignore that as well, desperately trying to induct their idiot campaign upon the clueless here, to convince everyone that jobs for everyone is communistic and must be resisted at all costs ;) .

And do you not think it's ironic that he's now filling his cabinet with those coastal elites?

Starbucks is seen as an icon of capitalism. It's a natural first target by so called anarchists.

talk about looting against self interest.. NOW WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PEE !!!

I mean ... I am non partisan.. tending to be sort of conservative however honestly... I get what you are saying about Trumps cabinet.. but I also get why people in Middle America voted for an anti Establishment (in theory guy). Now whether he screws them over, now that he is in office remains to be seen.

It's funny when you talk about Hillary voters doing what the elites told them to do, and yet Trump and Wilbur Ross's combined net worths alone are over $6.5b.

The difference here is that Hillary, like a true parasitic swampie, accumulated millions through her fake charity organizations run by her and her husband. Donations handed to her from all sorts of who's who in monster regimes around the globe which you can personally look up easily if you want a detailed listing on the net. So before we start climbing the high horse and praising one side higher than the other, it still remains that Trump has taken the Presidency for only THREE days.

Decent thing here is to wait till November 2020 before starting to make any possible comparisons because you need to wait for the incoming President to wipe clean most of the previous mess achieved under his predecessor, before he can start rebuilding the United States again from scratch.

The best thing would be to rebuild the infrastructure which has collapsed under previous incumbents which didn't care if bridges failed or roads fell apart. Instead of pumping out tax payer trillions to foreign regime changes and terrorists, start to really care for Americans on home soil. I liked his statement that all countries can look after themselves here and don't need the US to support them at all, first American President that said that in 40 years that I could ever remember. This is what will make him a great leader for his people instead another moron wanting to overthrow elected foreign countries for fun and enjoyment and reaping the rewards of global disintegration.

All Trump has to do is channel most of the tax payer funding to re-building the United States which has been left to rot and decay everywhere throughout this great nation, also to start repaying the trillions of dollars in debt accrued by previous parasites over the last 40 years. Why be a First World Power when millions are without jobs and there isn't any hope for the future?

That should be the NUMBER one job for any American President to help his people FIRST, that has been missing for such a long time now.

Uhuhhhhh... And the billions earned by Trump has all been legitimate? The multiple business bankruptcies causing the loss of countless thousands of jobs hasn't contributed to the issues created under former "parasites"? No tax returns available for the last 18 years which is unheard of in the history of the presidency?

Trump is not the anti-establishment, wrecking ball to the system, breath of fresh air you think he's going to be. All the people who like to influence votes with the money they have spent on various peoples campaigns can now just leapfrog over those in the house of representatives and go straight to their buddy in the Oval Office.

I for one hope he doesn't **** up everyone's health care, destroy the environment or cause some massive international diplomatic incident, because I quite like the world that I live in. I wish him all the best, but it doesn't mean those people who didn't vote for him can't voice their frustrations against him. I abhor violent civil disobedience for any cause, but protesting is the people's right.

All Trump has to do is channel most of the tax payer funding to re-building the United States which has been left to rot and decay everywhere throughout this great nation, also to start repaying the trillions of dollars in debt accrued by previous parasites over the last 40 years. Why be a First World Power when millions are without jobs and there isn't any hope for the future?

That should be the NUMBER one job for any American President to help his people FIRST, that has been missing for such a long time now.

You might want to do some fact checking before touting your statistics.

Also, the United States is more like a cruise ship than a speed boat. You don't immediately see the changes because of policies in most cases, because it takes time to implement them, and then see the effects. I do agree that Trump is being judge very harshly going into office... I don't think I've seen it as much, and do think it's unfair. But he's not helping himself with his approach so far. And the Democrats saying that they will resist him, rather than they will work to fulfill the will of the people and serve them... well, that's pretty much the same as the Republican rhetoric over the last 8 years, and that's gotten us nowhere.

I for one hope he doesn't **** up everyone's health care, destroy the environment or cause some massive international diplomatic incident, because I quite like the world that I live in. I wish him all the best, but it doesn't mean those people who didn't vote for him can't voice their frustrations against him. I abhor violent civil disobedience for any cause, but protesting is the people's right.

Not saying Trump is an ANGEL god forbid but he never lived off donations from establishing Fake Charities like what Hillary and Co has done.

What ever your political stance it still remains, that Trump needs to serve his posting first before all the Zealots start baying for his blood after only 3 days.

I have a naive hope, he doesn't become another Washington Swampie swimming with the parasitic filth that has done absolutely nothing for anyone, other than to build a broken down society which is scared of each other and their Government. This wasn't done overnight by Trump alone but it was done over a long period of time and that needs to be addressed here. The only way you can build trust within your Government when it delivers on it's promises and that will go a long way in every country (not just in the United States), no matter which side of the political fence you sit.

Trump has broke through the paralyzing partisanship that has affected all previous presidents, who were all slaves to their idiot party ideologies and self serving interests. Just hope he doesn't fall into that nest of Vipers and become consumed by them, Washington is a horrific cesspool never really existing anywhere else on Earth but in nightmares of decent everyday people. Politics is a nasty business to be sure so I have a little confidence that Trump will deliver because he's never scared of a fight no matter with whom.

Just my humble interpretation of Trump and the World's most Corrupt Parliamentary System (speaking with experience within Convict Town, home of Corruption) ;D .

It's baffling how anyone who calls themselves an American can defend either side. The problem is a lot of folks can't see how absolutely ****ed both Trump and Hillary supporters are. And how both Hillary and Trump are simply bad people, the fact that anyone claiming to have rational thought could settle for either of them or defend them at this point speaks volumes about the sad state of this country's future.

wow... bunch of people showed up to protest in liberal strongholds ... I for one am SHOCKED.. The coastal elites don't give a f*** about middle America, that is where Trump won, These areas have been rocked by years of decline.. a lot of his supporters can no longer afford to come to Washington for the inauguration..

This is the widespread reality of America.

The tiny but powerful few who had tried to help Hillary to grab power, yet failed dismally. They still see nothing wrong in their decision to encourage widespread panic with the moronic few because let's face it, most will do anything what the elites want them to with little to no understanding of why they are doing it.

The elites just witnessed a rebuke to their influence and are trying their best to tear it all down and burn everything as a final salute to those that voted for Trump. Like I said before wait till the end of four years when actual industry starts picking up because the elites will have a far harder time in trying to paint Trump as some kind of monster, when MILLIONS of Americans find new jobs under his term of leadership. Maybe the Mass-media will still ignore that as well, desperately trying to induct their idiot campaign upon the clueless here, to convince everyone that jobs for everyone is communistic and must be resisted at all costs ;) .

The rich elites tried to get Hillary in power, while Trump is a pauper (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html) that only had the support of the poor and struggling worker class (http://fortune.com/2016/10/17/donald-trump-peter-thiel-carl-icahn/), including some incredibly impoverished (http://fortune.com/2016/08/03/trump-billionaire-backers-list/) individuals.

The actual industry that will pick up... er, which industry is that again specifically (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/17/trump-cant-make-apples-iphone-manufacturing-come-back-and-it-wouldnt-help-if-he-could/)? Well, no matter, they're all the same as far as Trump is concerned I'm sure. Just tax all imports and outsourcing until those jobs come back, whatever they were, because it worked really well historically with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff (https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-hawley-tariff-and-the-great-depression/). But who cares about history - that has a well known liberal bias.

Let's bring back the coal jobs especially, as so many in the rust belt are suffering due to those pesky liberal solar and wind energy sources being cheaper and safer. No worries, just remove all regulations that are making coal no longer competitive (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/29/donald-trumps-promise-to-revive-coal-industry-will/), and build more plants, even if that makes air in our towns look like those in China (https://qz.com/157015/this-map-shows-where-the-chinese-coal-plants-that-kill-257000-a-year-are/) and kills thousands in the coal mines. We can then treat the rise of lung diseases and related injuries using the new wondrous healthcare system that is obviously going to be vastly better than anything before it.

Which is exactly why the ACA that many of his supporters use unknowingly (http://www.dailydot.com/upstream/jimmy-kimmel-obamacare-affordable-care-act/)is the first and foremost (http://time.com/4642088/trump-inauguration-obamacare-repeal-order/) priority of the administration, as repealing that will obviously immediately help the already struggling millions of lower income populace with their health problems. No need to actually have a concrete plan for something better first (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obamacare-replacement-plans/), because gotta get those pesky insurance premiums (https://www.wired.com/2017/01/not-even-insurance-companies-want-obamacare-repealed/) down ASAP for those that can no longer afford them. Such as businesses (http://fortune.com/2017/01/18/affordable-care-act-repealed/) that never insured their workers and the upper classes (http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/aca-repeal-would-lavish-medicare-tax-cuts-on-400-highest-income-households). What could possibly go wrong? (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-cbo-repealing-obamacare-20150619-column.html)

Look, it's okay. Of course he'll bring back manufacturing, because he deeply cares (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/12/lockheed-martin-share-prices-donald-trump-tweet) about domestic production (http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/the-carrier-jobs-trump-saved-will-be-automated-anyway/), like that time he yelled at Toyota (http://www.industryweek.com/competitiveness/toyota-tops-most-american-made-car-list). Don't look at the labels on the lines of clothing and other paraphernalia that he (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/26/how-many-trump-products-were-made-overseas-heres-the-complete-list/) and his daughter have (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/business/donald-trump-ivanka-clothes-global-trade-overseas-manufacturing.html).

We have to just have faith that the person that has a known history screwing over minority renters (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/trump-housing-discrimination-largest-in-history-228741), small businesses, and contractors (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/trump-small-business-owners/) while sitting on golden chairs (https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-family-cbs-interview-gold-thrones-elite-all-americans-man-of-the-people-7416171) and lying throughout (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) his entire campaign (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election) will put the little guys first and foremost.

Why, look at the cabinet appointments - incredibly qualified individuals all (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/19/donald-trump-has-assembled-the-worst-cabinet-in-american-history/), who know the struggles of the lower and middle classes well (http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/donald-trumps-14-billion-cabinet/). They'll do their utmost for us, of course.

How dare that pesky liberal media even attempt to sort through the constant stream of Orwellian (https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5phjg9/kellyanne_conway_spicer_gave_alternative_facts_on/dcrdfgn/?st=iy99x3xr&sh=83b411f1) post-truth (http://www.recode.net/2017/1/22/14350432/trump-press-secretary-lied-sean-spicer-meme) indecipherable (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/french-people-translate-donald-trump-us-president-language-speech-a7539461.html) verbiage? They're all fake, anyway, so it's not like it matters if they do manage it.

Just... just give the guy a chance. He'll definitely do unbelievable things to the country and the rest of the world.

This is a fine post for an Internet political discussion. Thanks Parak. Not simply because it justifies my pre-existing views, but because Parak cleverly and painstakingly breaks down the flimsiness and BS of the "policy" and arguments coming from current administration. It's Orwellian methods from the administrstion, to say the least.

Largest protests in American history on Saturday. It's going to be the political battle of our lifetime, and much it rests on the efforts of women that are more fired up than ever before and getting organized, something which people don't seem to realize in the young male dominated corners of Internet forums.

wow... bunch of people showed up to protest in liberal strongholds ... I for one am SHOCKED.. The coastal elites don't give a f*** about middle America, that is where Trump won, These areas have been rocked by years of decline.. a lot of his supporters can no longer afford to come to Washington for the inauguration..

This is the widespread reality of America.

The tiny but powerful few who had tried to help Hillary to grab power, yet failed dismally. They still see nothing wrong in their decision to encourage widespread panic with the moronic few because let's face it, most will do anything what the elites want them to with little to no understanding of why they are doing it.

The elites just witnessed a rebuke to their influence and are trying their best to tear it all down and burn everything as a final salute to those that voted for Trump. Like I said before wait till the end of four years when actual industry starts picking up because the elites will have a far harder time in trying to paint Trump as some kind of monster, when MILLIONS of Americans find new jobs under his term of leadership. Maybe the Mass-media will still ignore that as well, desperately trying to induct their idiot campaign upon the clueless here, to convince everyone that jobs for everyone is communistic and must be resisted at all costs ;) .

The rich elites tried to get Hillary in power, while Trump is a pauper (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html) that only had the support of the poor and struggling worker class (http://fortune.com/2016/10/17/donald-trump-peter-thiel-carl-icahn/), including some incredibly impoverished (http://fortune.com/2016/08/03/trump-billionaire-backers-list/) individuals.

The actual industry that will pick up... er, which industry is that again specifically (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/17/trump-cant-make-apples-iphone-manufacturing-come-back-and-it-wouldnt-help-if-he-could/)? Well, no matter, they're all the same as far as Trump is concerned I'm sure. Just tax all imports and outsourcing until those jobs come back, whatever they were, because it worked really well historically with the Smoot–Hawley Tariff (https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-hawley-tariff-and-the-great-depression/). But who cares about history - that has a well known liberal bias.

Let's bring back the coal jobs especially, as so many in the rust belt are suffering due to those pesky liberal solar and wind energy sources being cheaper and safer. No worries, just remove all regulations that are making coal no longer competitive (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/29/donald-trumps-promise-to-revive-coal-industry-will/), and build more plants, even if that makes air in our towns look like those in China (https://qz.com/157015/this-map-shows-where-the-chinese-coal-plants-that-kill-257000-a-year-are/) and kills thousands in the coal mines. We can then treat the rise of lung diseases and related injuries using the new wondrous healthcare system that is obviously going to be vastly better than anything before it.

Which is exactly why the ACA that many of his supporters use unknowingly (http://www.dailydot.com/upstream/jimmy-kimmel-obamacare-affordable-care-act/)is the first and foremost (http://time.com/4642088/trump-inauguration-obamacare-repeal-order/) priority of the administration, as repealing that will obviously immediately help the already struggling millions of lower income populace with their health problems. No need to actually have a concrete plan for something better first (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obamacare-replacement-plans/), because gotta get those pesky insurance premiums (https://www.wired.com/2017/01/not-even-insurance-companies-want-obamacare-repealed/) down ASAP for those that can no longer afford them. Such as businesses (http://fortune.com/2017/01/18/affordable-care-act-repealed/) that never insured their workers and the upper classes (http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/aca-repeal-would-lavish-medicare-tax-cuts-on-400-highest-income-households). What could possibly go wrong? (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-cbo-repealing-obamacare-20150619-column.html)

Look, it's okay. Of course he'll bring back manufacturing, because he deeply cares (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/12/lockheed-martin-share-prices-donald-trump-tweet) about domestic production (http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/the-carrier-jobs-trump-saved-will-be-automated-anyway/), like that time he yelled at Toyota (http://www.industryweek.com/competitiveness/toyota-tops-most-american-made-car-list). Don't look at the labels on the lines of clothing and other paraphernalia that he (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/26/how-many-trump-products-were-made-overseas-heres-the-complete-list/) and his daughter have (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/28/business/donald-trump-ivanka-clothes-global-trade-overseas-manufacturing.html).

We have to just have faith that the person that has a known history screwing over minority renters (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/trump-housing-discrimination-largest-in-history-228741), small businesses, and contractors (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/politics/trump-small-business-owners/) while sitting on golden chairs (https://www.indy100.com/article/donald-trump-family-cbs-interview-gold-thrones-elite-all-americans-man-of-the-people-7416171) and lying throughout (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) his entire campaign (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election) will put the little guys first and foremost.

Why, look at the cabinet appointments - incredibly qualified individuals all (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/19/donald-trump-has-assembled-the-worst-cabinet-in-american-history/), who know the struggles of the lower and middle classes well (http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/donald-trumps-14-billion-cabinet/). They'll do their utmost for us, of course.

How dare that pesky liberal media even attempt to sort through the constant stream of Orwellian (https://np.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5phjg9/kellyanne_conway_spicer_gave_alternative_facts_on/dcrdfgn/?st=iy99x3xr&sh=83b411f1) post-truth (http://www.recode.net/2017/1/22/14350432/trump-press-secretary-lied-sean-spicer-meme) indecipherable (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/french-people-translate-donald-trump-us-president-language-speech-a7539461.html) verbiage? They're all fake, anyway, so it's not like it matters if they do manage it.

Just... just give the guy a chance. He'll definitely do unbelievable things to the country and the rest of the world.

It's going to be the political battle of our lifetime, and much it rests on the efforts of women

I am even more perplexed and disturbed today than I was in November.

I don't blame Trump, he is a buffoon and an entertainer, the archetypal "clown genius" and he played out his role exquisitely.

And I don't really blame the 10s of millions of people who voted for him - we knew that was what they were going to do.

Who I blame is the 96 million Americans - nearly half of all eligible voters - who did not vote at all. What the **** were they thinking?

"Protests" at this point in time are just farting in the wind.

The only voice that people have is the vote, how could anyone squander that?

This has a lot to do with the Clinton campaign's false message of confidence. "We got this" seemed to be the mentality going into the election. Also, much of the first-black-president enthusiasm we saw in 2008 was absent in 2016 where we pitted "old white establishment lady" against "old white business man".

That said, there are many who consider Trump's win a giant "F#$% YOU" to the establishment, a message worth sending for millions of Americans. There was a significant, silent group of educated voters who regretted the individual carrying the message and all of the negative things associated with him, but valued the message enough to vote to send it. It's also important to remember that, while Trump fits the "sleazy businessman" profile, Hillary was a disgustingly corrupt politician, as well as a member of a political dynasty (something Americans have not liked since Bush II).

It's going to be the political battle of our lifetime, and much it rests on the efforts of women

I am even more perplexed and disturbed today than I was in November.

I don't blame Trump, he is a buffoon and an entertainer, the archetypal "clown genius" and he played out his role exquisitely.

And I don't really blame the 10s of millions of people who voted for him - we knew that was what they were going to do.

Who I blame is the 96 million Americans - nearly half of all eligible voters - who did not vote at all. What the **** were they thinking?

"Protests" at this point in time are just farting in the wind.

The only voice that people have is the vote, how could anyone squander that?

This has a lot to do with the Clinton campaign's false message of confidence. "We got this" seemed to be the mentality going into the election. Also, much of the first-black-president enthusiasm we saw in 2008 was absent in 2016 where we pitted "old white establishment lady" against "old white business man".

That said, there are many who consider Trump's win a giant "F#$% YOU" to the establishment, a message worth sending for millions of Americans. There was a significant, silent group of educated voters who regretted the individual carrying the message and all of the negative things associated with him, but valued the message enough to vote to send it. It's also important to remember that, while Trump fits the "sleazy businessman" profile, Hillary was a disgustingly corrupt politician, as well as a member of a political dynasty (something Americans have not liked since Bush II).

It was a perfect storm of many factors.

/Trump... BEST PRESIDENT...

Although... he's certainly from a Dynasty... --albeit-- not the normal one we get... hahahaha

The message that was sent was..

"FFFF you --people who went to college--, also because it's trump, they're also saying, women get back in the kitchen"

It's going to be the political battle of our lifetime, and much it rests on the efforts of women

I am even more perplexed and disturbed today than I was in November.

I don't blame Trump, he is a buffoon and an entertainer, the archetypal "clown genius" and he played out his role exquisitely.

And I don't really blame the 10s of millions of people who voted for him - we knew that was what they were going to do.

Who I blame is the 96 million Americans - nearly half of all eligible voters - who did not vote at all. What the **** were they thinking?

"Protests" at this point in time are just farting in the wind.

The only voice that people have is the vote, how could anyone squander that?

It's important to remember that over 70 milllion voters DID NOT vote for him.

Protests are not farting in the wind. Protests are the physical and emotional manifestation of how people are feeling and what they want, and often leading to further organization, strategy, and action. Simply look at what the Tea Party did to push out moderate, willing-to-compromise politicians and replaced them with ideologues. There is a reason that authoritarian regimes put bans of certain amounts of people meeting together in one place. They know it is dangerous to their power.

It's going to be the political battle of our lifetime, and much it rests on the efforts of women

I am even more perplexed and disturbed today than I was in November.

I don't blame Trump, he is a buffoon and an entertainer, the archetypal "clown genius" and he played out his role exquisitely.

And I don't really blame the 10s of millions of people who voted for him - we knew that was what they were going to do.

Who I blame is the 96 million Americans - nearly half of all eligible voters - who did not vote at all. What the **** were they thinking?

"Protests" at this point in time are just farting in the wind.

The only voice that people have is the vote, how could anyone squander that?

This has a lot to do with the Clinton campaign's false message of confidence. "We got this" seemed to be the mentality going into the election. Also, much of the first-black-president enthusiasm we saw in 2008 was absent in 2016 where we pitted "old white establishment lady" against "old white business man".

That said, there are many who consider Trump's win a giant "F#$% YOU" to the establishment, a message worth sending for millions of Americans. There was a significant, silent group of educated voters who regretted the individual carrying the message and all of the negative things associated with him, but valued the message enough to vote to send it. It's also important to remember that, while Trump fits the "sleazy businessman" profile, Hillary was a disgustingly corrupt politician, as well as a member of a political dynasty (something Americans have not liked since Bush II).

It was a perfect storm of many factors.

The greatest irony of this idea is that Trump is a slatwart of the rich, elite establishment. But he speaks and acts in a way that you don't hear from the traditional politician, more like your uncle that gleens his political knowledge from partisan TV news, which has its own appeal to lots of Americans.

The greatest irony of this idea is that Trump is a slatwart of the rich, elite establishment. But he speaks and acts in a way that you don't hear from the traditional politician, more like your uncle that gleens his political knowledge from partisan TV news, which has its own appeal to lots of Americans.

People are not so fundamentally different, whether they are rich or poor..

They want the same things.. and would generally behave the same given identical circumstances..

The battle is actually always between who got there first, keeping others from -getting there-..

That said, there are many who consider Trump's win a giant "F#$% YOU" to the establishment, a message worth sending for millions of Americans. There was a significant, silent group of educated voters who regretted the individual carrying the message and all of the negative things associated with him, but valued the message enough to vote to send it.

First off, I don't consider an educated voter someone that holds some education or higher forms of education, diplomas, and so forth. I'm a firm believer that while nice to have, a former education is not an absolute requirement to be an educated (as in about issues and positions) voter. Now, with that out of the way..

A truly educated voter, faced by hypothetical choice of two equally distasteful candidates, would vote for one, then on the opposite side for the house and senate. This guarantees a balance of power, and requiring cooperation and compromises from the candidate, or at the very least renders them without much power. An equally valid choice of the educated voter is to vote third party to give them a sufficient percentage for more power nationwide in current as well as future elections. Both send a powerful message, far more powerful than anything that was sent this election. Neither of the two options is actually particularly valid in this existing case, however. Why you ask? Well, it's quite simple:

The vast majority of voters simply (http://news.yale.edu/2003/11/18/people-vote-their-party-not-their-personal-beliefs) vote on their side of the ticket, the same side that they vote for the president. In fact, 10 states (http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/straight-ticket-voting.aspx) still allow you to do so with a single checkbox.

Nor will they vote for a third party candidate due to too little exposure to them via their favorite media of choice, which is at least partially due to insufficient voters during polling (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/15-magic-number-party-presidential-candidates-gary-johnson/story?id=41149669).

Being an educated voter is HARD. It requires a lot of time and effort, and is not something (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/11/03/what-no-one-talks-about-during-election-season-voter-ignorance/) that a lot of people adhere to in the age where a single tweet (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/technology/for-election-day-chatter-twitter-ruled-social-media.html), facebook post (http://www.niemanlab.org/2016/05/pew-report-44-percent-of-u-s-adults-get-news-on-facebook/), or a few minute blurb (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-01-06/fox-news-really-does-make-people-vote-republican) on their favorite news channel is sufficient to sway the vote. For example, a simple fact checking website after a debate only drew about 6 million (http://www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/158352/debate-fact-checker-helps-npr-org-break-its-web-tr) visitors (with an unknown foreign visitor quantity). Sounds impressive, until you realize that there were 231,556,622 eligible voters, of which 138,884,643 voted. So even if you subscribe to the notion that only those that voted matter, that's still only about 4% that bothered. I'd even be willing to add a few more percent to account for other websites.

An educated voter in a swing state may recognize that sometimes there is too much at stake (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-29/voting-third-party-is-a-mistake-that-ill-never-make-again) with their vote is more important than most, to vote for a third party candidate especially given how majority vote as per #1 and #2.

It's a sad state of affairs, but that's where we are at. So, based on the above I do not believe that there was a significant enough amount of actual educated voters that voted in protest, as such voters would likely to be able to discern better options than that. This is a moot point however as such voters might as well at this point be a margin of error for statistical purposes.

By your netting, an educated person would neither vote, NOR even talk about voting..

Such person would instead go make money, and through that achieve TRUE political EFFICACY..

So, all you've done is call yourself an idiot for this continued bickering over politics on an inconsequential online forum about keyboards.

Totally agree with TP here. Someone should end this because carrying on with this here is now totally mute considering what this forum was setup to praise "KEYBOARDS" - not stupid ideologies and corruption.

mods shouldn't remove it - it's off topic. TP4 should lock it though since it's way too toxic

tbh it is very legitimizing when someone responds to mild, objective, two-sided generalizations with one-sided attacks. I have always enjoyed a good patriotic back and forth, but maybe I'm just not educated appropriately! :)

Part of being a non-partisan voter is the freedom of choice you get from having no affiliation. I've voted: Bush, Obama, abstain (mistake), Trump (TBD). I always love a good political discussion, and try to be two-sided in fairness whenever I talk politics. Just because things are bleak and have been for a while doesn't mean we shouldn't talk and figure out what's getting people so triggered!

Let's all face facts: The end goal here was to get a president Pence, so the way they rigged everything was rather well done. How else do you get an unelectable man elected? Overshadow him with a loud brash fireworks show that distracts the simpletons with flashing colors so no one pays any attention to the Voldemort behind him. There was absolutely no way even Pence would have been able to beat that robotic lizard Hillary, so they just snuck him in as the VP because they knew the story everyone wanted to hear was Trump.

Once Trump is impeached we will be left with far worse, so yeah you may hate Hillary which is understandable, but by voting Trump you've ****ed absolutely everyone in the end.

I understand your concern. I think that sentiment is one of the reasons voters in the US put Trump in office. The so-called forgotten men and women Trump spoke to were tired of stagnant wages (if they still had jobs), underemployment, and degraded occupations, while they heard pontifications about the unemployment rate dropping to record lows; numbers that don't account for those who finally gave up and left the workforce.

This pattern will never change for differing segments of the economy depending on the time in history and no politician will ever save us. 8 years ago, people looked towards Obama's positive message for hope. Now they look towards Trump to save us from the "carnage". When your industry tanks or town starts to shrivel up, you can move, retrain/re-educated yourself, try to create multiple income streams, something, anything besides hoping your politicians or company will save you. That's the way it has always been, that's the way it always will be. Savior worship of politicians is always a losing game.

Of course, that is a simplistic solution, because people are in different circumstances that make it difficult to respond adequately when they lose their job or their industry starts disappearing. I've seen much of it firsthand.

Part of being a non-partisan voter is the freedom of choice you get from having no affiliation. I've voted: Bush, Obama, abstain (mistake), Trump (TBD). I always love a good political discussion, and try to be two-sided in fairness whenever I talk politics. Just because things are bleak and have been for a while doesn't mean we shouldn't talk and figure out what's getting people so triggered!

If you think it is only a two-sided debate, that's an entirely too simplistic generalization. The political masters use the whole two-sided debate in this country to herd voters into corners over mostly trivial issues, and then just use your vote to advance their own agenda. They throw the common folk a few bones here and there, but never shake up the status quo too much. Don't be a fool.

Let's all face facts: The end goal here was to get a president Pence, so the way they rigged everything was rather well done. How else do you get an unelectable man elected? Overshadow him with a loud brash fireworks show that distracts the simpletons with flashing colors so no one pays any attention to the Voldemort behind him. There was absolutely no way even Pence would have been able to beat that robotic lizard Hillary, so they just snuck him in as the VP because they knew the story everyone wanted to hear was Trump.

Once Trump is impeached we will be left with far worse, so yeah you may hate Hillary which is understandable, but by voting Trump you've ****ed absolutely everyone in the end.

I was chatting about this with a fellow Hoosier in the know on government affairs. I thought was Trump was worse because he is more unstable and Pence is more predictable and malleable. He thought Pence was worse because of his ultraconservative, theologian agenda, and Trump could be convinced to be less extreme. We agreed that is was a tossup about who is worse.

My take is that the approach of this administration will be disastrous, which appears to be move fast without any idea of the effects of their actions, just push your short-sighted, opportunistic agenda through so hard and fast that the opposition can't respond. I am certainly open to the idea of businessmen and outsiders running government agencies, I've seen it succeed before. But when the newly appointed agency heads don't have any interest in learning about the agencies or listening to the people that have deep agency knowledge or experts in the field, it will inevitably lead to poor outcomes, employees will be unhappy, service delivery will suffer, the regulated community will be frustrated by the internal chaos, and the people that benefit from government services, which is all of us, will be affected. Businesses like stability, not chaos.

It's possible to reform government without f-ing up the whole system or bringing it to a complete halt, which is what is happening right now. What it takes is doing more than playing politics, but rather respecting your employees and citizens, setting realistic goals, both short and long term, and actually trying to manage the organization, like a real inspiring organizational leader does, if any of you have encountered one before.

Regarding the legislation coming out of Congress, the idea of cutting taxes and privatizing as much as possible will certainly benefit the wealthy and corporations, but have middling effects for the common man, like massive privatization or defunding of public programs usually does. I would have some respect for Congress if they were not the biggest hypocrites I've ever seen as soon as one of their own got into the office. Heck, they tried to push out ethics and open the door for corruption right away, but somehow that got stopped. All I see is ego, power grabs, fights for control, and an overzealous desire to carry out a fringe agenda they've kept in full uniform on the sidelines for years. It is and will continue to be a circus.

I'll check every now and then to review the trends. I will gladly eat my words if there is some massive turnaround in a couple years.

I think Trump has been judged unfairly. He has barely taken office and there are these fierce and emotional demonstrations about how evil he is. Even Madonna is recommending (to an audience of millions) blowing up the White House.

Everyone has flaws. One black Trump supporter pointed out that while Trump is racist, he didn’t think Trump was any more racist than most white people. Trump is just less sophisticated and unskilled with using politically correct paens to hide his inner prejudices. Thus he is seen as more honest than Hillary because he is very poor at hiding his flaws and inconsistencies.

For all the negative things about his real estate business excluding blacks, it’s also true that Trump was the first person to desegregate his Mar-a-Lago resort. Everyone else in the area refused blacks and Jews. Trump openly welcomed them.

A former employee, Barbara Res, said that Trump basically ‘profiled, but didn’t discriminate’. He definitely held prejudices, but when it came to business, he did business with anyone. He hired plenty of Mexicans in his hotels. He didn’t really respect women as a category and shamelessly lusted after them, but when it came to work he was work-minded. The picture I get of Trump is that he’s really more of a boor than a psychopath or ideologue. He’s not out to deliver anyone a world of hurt, or to impose a religion and way of life on others. He’s like a lot of real estate developers and building contractors, macho seeming guys who puff themselves up like cockatoos.

In any ordinary circumstance, Trump would be a very poor choice for the White House. However the world is now in a state of transition. The old elites who got rich from globalization have no answer to the many people structurally out of work or disadvantaged by globalization. They just keep preaching more free trade and more migration.

There is a real American carnage going on. Vast sections of continental America have been hollowed out economically thanks to free market competition from China.

It is glib and dishonest for the coastal-based liberals to just say, well, get out of town and migrate then!

You’re asking people to uproot themselves in the millions from their families and towns and massively migrate to where the jobs are.

If 20 million people moved out of the Midwest and Rust Belt, 4 million would go to NYC, 3 million to LA, 1 million each to Houston and Chicago and Atlanta. Housing costs and infrastructure pressures would skyrocket. A new white urban underclass, drug abusing and discontented, would pop up. Many people would turn to religion for comfort and vote Republican. And tell me the libs won’t be hating on them?

Because no one would champion their cause, many of the declining white middle class voted Trump.

I don’t know if Trump can deliver. But if he delivers, I think America, and American democracy, would be much better off. Before you start getting into some global ideal of admitting all Mexicans or Muslims who want to enter the USA, you need to make sure your own citizens are doing fine. Athenian democracy took care of Athenians first. Venetian Republic took care of Venetian interests first. USA needs to start taking care of its own people before it tries to be some sort of global examplar. The decline of the US middle class is NOT good for democracy.

Trump the populist is a lot less dangerous than someone like Hitler or Mussolini or Mao or Stalin. Unlike these four dictators, Trump is not tied to any ideology. History has shown that people tied to ideologies are the most likely to do the worst things because they are deluded by their religion and their ideology. Trump may be slow to recognize that he has done something wrong, but once he sees it, he can change.

I don’t believe in giving Trump 4 years. But 1.5 years is fine, until the campaigning starts for the Midterm elections. If the Republicans have been pragmatic and truly patriotic in their policymaking, they will deserve reelection and strengthen their majority in Congress. If the Republicans have focused their energy on religion in schools and other measures that don’t take care of the Middle Class, they will lose their majority and Congress will have a deadlock.

Problem is, Republican party is too full of ideologues. The swamp monsters. USA needs more fresh blood not tied to established interests. All the old idiots in Congress need to get out. John Lewis needs to understand that his heroics 50 years ago are not relevant as a selling point for reelection in 2018. You need more energetic, engaged and intelligent people like Cory Booker, and less geriatrics resting on their laurels.

Fohat—Agreed, over-populaton is a problem but I'm not sure that addresses the problem of surplus labor. If we have 4 billion people instead of 8 billion, it would largely leave the same percentage of people unnecessary to run a heavily automated society. I'm reminded of the blobs of dystopic humanity in the movie WALL-E.

Granting that we should reduce population, how would we do it? Education? Limiting numbers of children to parents? Stopping humanitarian aid to underdeveloped nations? Extermination of undesirable elements? Euthanization for people at the first sign of geriatric disease? WW3? This is not not meant as a rhetoric. A less populated Earth makes sense. I'm just not sure how to do it without a callous disregard for others autonomy or well being.

Ultimately, the questions that must be asked will have to include the value and purpose of the individual.

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

There is no liberal answer to this.

That's a bit of odd statement. Why do you think that there's no liberal answer? This is something that has been extensively studied for decades, and has innumerable publications and statistics. Surely somewhere in there is at least one proposal that has some sort of a liberal lean to it.

I'm interested in hearing it, as I don't know it, or don't know the specific answer being discussed. I can think of multiple possible answers that lean right to some extent or other, but I don't want to presume.

"Trump just announced his pick for FCC Chairman, and it's Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer and the absolute worst case scenario for net neutrality.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered" and that he would "fire up the weed whacker" to gut protections like the open internet rule."

- Kurt Walters 2017

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#6e2d493e4c7f)

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality.

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

There is no liberal answer to this.

We know the right wing answer to this, and it isn't pretty either.

You have a wrong outlook on Children..

What we need is MORE KIDS, regardless of who they come from..

People have the wrong comprehension of money..

IN truth the strength and wealth of a nation is in its population, the bigger the better, Period..

Look at japan... They have virtually infinite money just like the USA, but they're on steep decline, because they have no god damn kids..

Once people have money, they become deadened to the natural responsibility (as living organisms) to procreate.. They want television, they want entertainment, they want luxuries, they want alcohol, they want drugs...

It is the rich that is closer to oblivion... it's a good thing that there are so few of them..

"Trump just announced his pick for FCC Chairman, and it's Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer and the absolute worst case scenario for net neutrality.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered" and that he would "fire up the weed whacker" to gut protections like the open internet rule."

- Kurt Walters 2017

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#6e2d493e4c7f)

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality.

Trump has the habit of appointing people who are the opposites, and who have the most conflicting views.

For a man who seems hubristic in many ways, this is one of the most intelligent habits by far.

And I think it is one of the least understood habits of Trump.

For all his boasting and posturing Trump is perfectly aware that he isn't the smartest nor that he has all the answers. That's why he deliberately has people bring different perspectives to the table, and to have them fight it out in front of him.

Appointing total skeptics to run certain agencies isn't necessarily a bad move. It brings a totally different point of view to what is otherwise an echo chamber. The skeptic will also have more credibility with the enemies of these agencies, ensuring greater cooperation.

The responsibility for the selections, however, lie with Donald Trump.

If Trump selected a skeptic or former enemy and used him to head a committee or agency, this will be a success if Trump made a good character judgement - that such a person is open minded and amenable to changing his views after getting new information from the agency officers and committee members.

If Trump made a bad judgement and chose an ideologue, then this person will head the agency with the mentality of a wrecker or saboteur. He will do no good.

I'm pretty sure some of the people Trump appointed will lead their agencies down dark and destructive ways. But I also expect the outcomes to be unpredictable.

Jeff Sessions for instance, is often thought of as a big racist. But one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices in US history, Hugo Black, started out as not just a racist, but a member of the KKK.

So people can be unpredictable. And the Trump administration is probably the least predictable in the history of the United States. They'll either drain the swamp and leave the US as a better place, or... just read any liberal newspaper for predictions on what is likely to happen.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered"

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#6e2d493e4c7f)

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality.

Let me digest this a bit. So far, I haven't figured out how to resolve the conflicting concepts enumerated here.

I was 100% behind the decision to define the internet as a "public utility" and that inevitably involves certain levels of regulation (and hopefully that is to keep the playing field level).

Trump has the habit of appointing people who are the opposites, and who have the most conflicting views.

For a man who seems hubristic in many ways, this is one of the most intelligent habits by far.

And I think it is one of the least understood habits of Trump.

For all his boasting and posturing Trump is perfectly aware that he isn't the smartest nor that he has all the answers. That's why he deliberately has people bring different perspectives to the table, and to have them fight it out in front of him.

Appointing total skeptics to run certain agencies isn't necessarily a bad move. It brings a totally different point of view to what is otherwise an echo chamber. The skeptic will also have more credibility with the enemies of these agencies, ensuring greater cooperation.

The responsibility for the selections, however, lie with Donald Trump.

If Trump selected a skeptic or former enemy and used him to head a committee or agency, this will be a success if Trump made a good character judgement - that such a person is open minded and amenable to changing his views after getting new information from the agency officers and committee members.

If Trump made a bad judgement and chose an ideologue, then this person will head the agency with the mentality of a wrecker or saboteur. He will do no good.

I'm pretty sure some of the people Trump appointed will lead their agencies down dark and destructive ways. But I also expect the outcomes to be unpredictable.

Jeff Sessions for instance, is often thought of as a big racist. But one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices in US history, Hugo Black, started out as not just a racist, but a member of the KKK.

So people can be unpredictable. And the Trump administration is probably the least predictable in the history of the United States. They'll either drain the swamp and leave the US as a better place, or... just read any liberal newspaper for predictions on what is likely to happen.

Pai is a guy who said after Trump was elected that the neutrality's "days are numbered"

Interesting read from a Forbes Contributor; Why Is The Media Smearing New FCC Chair Ajit Pai As The Enemy Of Net Neutrality? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#6e2d493e4c7f)

I feel like I am getting conflicting information this, trying to understand if him as chairman will be a good move (or not) for net neutrality.

Let me digest this a bit. So far, I haven't figured out how to resolve the conflicting concepts enumerated here.

I was 100% behind the decision to define the internet as a "public utility" and that inevitably involves certain levels of regulation (and hopefully that is to keep the playing field level).

Net neutrality is a certainty..

You can not challenge Google as a politician.. that is political suicide..

I think that Trump's pro-business pro-labor policies will help the struggling working class some, but automation is a more threatening trend for the American worker.

Any thoughts on how we deal with the vast number of people who will no longer be needed in tomorrow's world?

Universal basic income and more funding for job retraining or re-education is all i can think of. Unfortunately, individuals that are forced out of a job or industry later in life will have more difficulty with re-positioning themselves in an increasingly automated world.

Fohat—Agreed, over-populaton is a problem but I'm not sure that addresses the problem of surplus labor. If we have 4 billion people instead of 8 billion, it would largely leave the same percentage of people unnecessary to run a heavily automated society. I'm reminded of the blobs of dystopic humanity in the movie WALL-E.

Granting that we should reduce population, how would we do it? Education? Limiting numbers of children to parents? Stopping humanitarian aid to underdeveloped nations? Extermination of undesirable elements? Euthanization for people at the first sign of geriatric disease? WW3? This is not not meant as a rhetoric. A less populated Earth makes sense. I'm just not sure how to do it without a callous disregard for others autonomy or well being.

Ultimately, the questions that must be asked will have to include the value and purpose of the individual.

As always, the people who can least afford to support their children, have the most of such children.

The poorest, most messed up countries are the ones who have the highest birthrates, after which they demand for aid, prey on others' shipping, or simply send out their excess population to others as refugees.

There is no liberal answer to this.

We know the right wing answer to this, and it isn't pretty either.

The topic of reducing fertility rates has been well researched and carried out in many countries. In fact, fertility rates have been on the declining for many decades and the growth in world population has slowed considerably. Two things that come to mind are improving access to birth control methods (not even talking about abortion here) and empowering women. Women that see themselves as more than mothers, but actually educated individuals that have a place in the world of work, will be less enthusiastic to be subservient to a man and have a bunch of children.

And you don't have to force any of this on people, just provide them with the opportunity and they will use it if they want it.

If you're that interested in the topic, here is a start from the first page of Google results. (http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP176/index2.html) You can Google the issue some more if you that interested.

The topic of reducing fertility rates has been well researched and carried out in many countries. In fact, fertility rates have been on the declining for many decades and the growth in world population has slowed considerably. Two things that come to mind are improving access to birth control methods (not even talking about abortion here) and empowering women. Women that see themselves as more than mothers, but actually educated individuals that have a place in the world of work, will be less enthusiastic to be subservient to a man and have a bunch of children.

And you don't have to force any of this on people, just provide them with the opportunity and they will use it if they want it.

If you're that interested in the topic, here is a start from the first page of Google results. (http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP176/index2.html) You can Google the issue some more if you that interested.

If they want it ?

We have a clear picture.. once you're fed and educated (as far as modern education is concerned)... YOU DON"T want KIDS..

This is bad.. very very bad..

There's hope that we reach a balance point.. but more likely than not.. It'll get to a point where you MUST have one to fill the ranks..

We have a clear picture.. once you're fed and educated (as far as modern education is concerned)... YOU DON"T want KIDS..

This is bad.. very very bad..

There's hope that we reach a balance point.. but more likely than not.. It'll get to a point where you MUST have one to fill the ranks..

So it means that every Geekhacker has to start impregnating as many women as possible and you lot need to do it soon.

Do it for your Country because quite soon your own population will be reduced down to oldies and walking frame cretins unable to do anything. Time to pull out the family jewels and put them to work and I don't mean shooting anymore Pron vids for facebook.

It's your duty to bring in the new generation to clean up our mess we've created for more than 50 plus years.

We have a clear picture.. once you're fed and educated (as far as modern education is concerned)... YOU DON"T want KIDS..

This is bad.. very very bad..

There's hope that we reach a balance point.. but more likely than not.. It'll get to a point where you MUST have one to fill the ranks..

So it means that every Geekhacker has to start impregnating as many women as possible and you lot need to do it soon.

Do it for your Country because quite soon your own population will be reduced down to oldies and walking frame cretins unable to do anything. Time to pull out the family jewels and put them to work and I don't mean shooting anymore Pron vids for facebook.

It's your duty to bring in the new generation to clean up our mess we've created for more than 50 plus years.

Well, IDK, for many of us Geekhackers Personally, #Ronery4ever isn't a choice, you kinda just prolly born this way.. hahahahahahahahaha

Here in the Western world, it is almost considered a "right" to have a child, no matter what.Childless couples who want a child or even childless single women in their 40's are given medical treatments to get pregnant and those treatments are often paid for with public funds (in countries that offer their citizens affordable health care)The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child. Top cope with cases where a child had died in childhood, the sterilization procedures chosen should be of types that could be reversed.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany. Governments should not kill their own people. Murder is murder.

We'll wind up with a lot of religious people, ranging from Amish to Orthodox Jews to Catholics to Muslims, all really pissed.

The Pope just fired the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta. For offering condoms to poor people as part of his charitable initiatives against VD and unwanted children.

Amish might just peacefully go to jail. But the Orthodox Jews will be suing and suing away. And the Muslims will start blowing things up. There will be no peace until the religious people get to pump out all the kids they want.

I am 100% certain that the world will get more religious. Because the secular progressives will be quickly out reproduced by the religious.

This is the 21st century and you still have lots of people in the USA who refuse to believe in Evolution and who literally think the world is only a few thousand years old.

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany.

There are morally acceptable ways to accomplish some of this.

For example, provide tax breaks and benefits for the first 2 offspring, then tax additional children heavily.

Suicide and euthanasia should be acceptable and non-stigmatized ways for competent adults to end their lives, if they so choose.

I am not so sure about the suicide portion but I wholly support euthanasia laws like Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. If someone is terminally ill, there is no need to prolong any suffering for fear of "Playing God".

I am 100% certain that the world will get more religious. Because the secular progressives will be quickly out reproduced by the religious.

As horrible and distressing as this is, I have to disagree.

The fact is that while we don't know what really comprises the universe, but it is about as close to a certainty as you can get that the Hebrew God, as imagined in traditional Western religion, is not and was never real, and that the "words" that he supposedly passed down to the human race are surely a human fabrication.

If the creationists and climate deniers killed off all the rational people in the world, does that mean that their beliefs would become "true"?

Not matter what any or all the members of the human race believe (that is: choose to think) it does not alter reality.

The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany.

There are morally acceptable ways to accomplish some of this.

For example, provide tax breaks and benefits for the first 2 offspring, then tax additional children heavily.

Suicide and euthanasia should be acceptable and non-stigmatized ways for competent adults to end their lives, if they so choose.

I am not so sure about the suicide portion but I wholly support euthanasia laws like Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. If someone is terminally ill, there is no need to prolong any suffering for fear of "Playing God".

Why is it that you guys think having LESS kids is the right way to go..

The current economy is completely dependent on humans continuously producing more kids..

If humans don't produce children, then the system continuously prints money that is stagnant..

Here in the Western world, it is almost considered a "right" to have a child, no matter what.Childless couples who want a child or even childless single women in their 40's are given medical treatments to get pregnant and those treatments are often paid for with public funds (in countries that offer their citizens affordable health care)The first step to limiting population growth would be to change that attitude.

The next step would be to sterilize parents after they have had their second child. Top cope with cases where a child had died in childhood, the sterilization procedures chosen should be of types that could be reversed.

Killing people when they are geriatric or weak... That's stuff from Nazi Germany. Governments should not kill their own people. Murder is murder.

See people like you are the problem..

Are you going to join the military and get shot

Are you going to go clean vomit from a floor in a school of 1000 kids who vomit alot..

Are you going to go swing a axe in a coal mine..

No.. No one willingly do those things unless they had no better option..

If you started capping off the lower economic class, now who's left to do all of those things.

This is ridiculous.. The more people the better.. The mental sickness you guys have is generated by having lived too comfortably..

Go to a construction site for a day, and witness REAL god damn work.. for every engineer, there's 1000s of guys breaking their backs swinging a hammer..

Now in your perfect world where only educated rich people procreate.. congratulation, all your money is worth less, because China has all these dudes that'll come into your base and take your ****.. because you didn't produce enough of your own dudes..

Your money is also worthless, because there's no one you can hire to maintain infrastructure..

Because you know, only educated rich people can have kids..

So what's left, you gotta do your own roads.. ?? too bad, you're 500 men short of building a road..

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter. I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys.. core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years? There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter. I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys.. core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years? There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

Well, I would say people still read that old stuff because they need to feel better about their English degrees.. hahahahaha

As for democracy..

I don't think Plato's comprehension of democracy is the same as today..

Democracy without communication is as he said under threat by ignorance.. So that is a huge problem in his day, because information is localized, and some guy has to yell at the top of his lungs on a certain day at a certain time, and you had to be there to hear it.

The threat of ignorance isn't so much a problem today, rather democracy is under threat because of capitalist mentality .. To pursue increased personal wealth without a clear purpose in utilizing such wealth..

This is far more dangerous, because the population is then aimless, and easily circularly huddled around hedonism..

This wouldn't have been a problem except now we have Thoroughly conquered the Equation to happiness.. Turns out, it's Heroin..

And we can generate an infinite supply of Heroin..

In conflict, We now also know.. If you're happy, you don't go to work, you don't want to work, you don't feel like you need anything.. EXCEPT being m0ar happy..

Modern Pharmacology has redefined what used to be a human endeavor.. Happiness as it turns out is not a right , it's a metered resource..

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter. I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys.. core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years? There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

Well, I would say people still read that old stuff because they need to feel better about their English degrees.. hahahahaha

As for democracy..

I don't think Plato's comprehension of democracy is the same as today..

Democracy without communication is as he said under threat by ignorance.. So that is a huge problem in his day, because information is localized, and some guy has to yell at the top of his lungs on a certain day at a certain time, and you had to be there to hear it.

The threat of ignorance isn't so much a problem today, rather democracy is under threat because of capitalist mentality .. To pursue increased personal wealth without a clear purpose in utilizing such wealth..

This is far more dangerous, because the population is then aimless, and easily circularly huddled around hedonism..

This wouldn't have been a problem except now we have Thoroughly conquered the Equation to happiness.. Turns out, it's Heroin..

And we can generate an infinite supply of Heroin..

In conflict, We now also know.. If you're happy, you don't go to work, you don't want to work, you don't feel like you need anything.. EXCEPT being m0ar happy..

Modern Pharmacology has redefined what used to be a human endeavor.. Happiness as it turns out is not a right , it's a metered resource..

I know you like offer a counterpoint for the sake of offering a counterpoint, but...okay I really don't know what to say when tp goes off like this. Maybe just bow down at his clown genius.

I think that's the great weakness of democracy and human rights. You have freedom of religion, which allows all the fools to use religion as an excuse to do as they please.

Plato said thousands of years ago that the greatest threat to democracy is the ignorance of the average voter. I would add apathy to that short list as well.

plato didn't have internet..

Stop making these leaps guys.. core principles might remain the same, but expression of those principles have drastically been evolved by technology.

Yea, but looking beyond the impact of modern technology, have the essential parts of human nature and behavior changed that much in the last couple thousands years? There's a reason that we still read the Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays, they still are relevant to modern human behavior.

Well, I would say people still read that old stuff because they need to feel better about their English degrees.. hahahahaha

As for democracy..

I don't think Plato's comprehension of democracy is the same as today..

Democracy without communication is as he said under threat by ignorance.. So that is a huge problem in his day, because information is localized, and some guy has to yell at the top of his lungs on a certain day at a certain time, and you had to be there to hear it.

The threat of ignorance isn't so much a problem today, rather democracy is under threat because of capitalist mentality .. To pursue increased personal wealth without a clear purpose in utilizing such wealth..

This is far more dangerous, because the population is then aimless, and easily circularly huddled around hedonism..

This wouldn't have been a problem except now we have Thoroughly conquered the Equation to happiness.. Turns out, it's Heroin..

And we can generate an infinite supply of Heroin..

In conflict, We now also know.. If you're happy, you don't go to work, you don't want to work, you don't feel like you need anything.. EXCEPT being m0ar happy..

Modern Pharmacology has redefined what used to be a human endeavor.. Happiness as it turns out is not a right , it's a metered resource..

I know you like offer a counterpoint for the sake of offering a counterpoint, but...okay I really don't know what to say when tp goes off like this. Maybe just bow down at his clown genius.

All tp wants is a belly rub.... go on give him a belly scratch he loves belly scratches.

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

No doubt it will suck for all the Philosophy grads expecting $75k out of College.

For the rest of us in the real world we'll simply curb our spending. I know that seems like such an alien concept but there was a time when people didn't buy something unless they had the money. Maybe it will help separate "need" from "want".

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

No doubt it will suck for all the Philosophy grads expecting $75k out of College.

For the rest of us in the real world we'll simply curb our spending. I know that seems like such an alien concept but there was a time when people didn't buy something unless they had the money. Maybe it will help separate "need" from "want".

There's gonna be a riot if he does this..

Because there are simply too many things made outside the us right now... and @ 10% + sales tax, no one making 40k will be able to afford anything at all..

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

No doubt it will suck for all the Philosophy grads expecting $75k out of College.

For the rest of us in the real world we'll simply curb our spending. I know that seems like such an alien concept but there was a time when people didn't buy something unless they had the money. Maybe it will help separate "need" from "want".

There's gonna be a riot if he does this..

Because there are simply too many things made outside the us right now... and @ 10% + sales tax, no one making 40k will be able to afford anything at all..

There have been people rioting since 2016. As they say - American's have short attention spans and I guess I just got used to them.

Where was the outrage in this? (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/24/barack-obama-palestine-funding-221-million-final-hours)

You have issues with a 10% tariff - which a lot of our "friends" are already doing - but no outrage over Obama printing money and giving it away?

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

No doubt it will suck for all the Philosophy grads expecting $75k out of College.

For the rest of us in the real world we'll simply curb our spending. I know that seems like such an alien concept but there was a time when people didn't buy something unless they had the money. Maybe it will help separate "need" from "want".

There's gonna be a riot if he does this..

Because there are simply too many things made outside the us right now... and @ 10% + sales tax, no one making 40k will be able to afford anything at all..

There have been people rioting since 2016. As they say - American's have short attention spans and I guess I just got used to them.

Where was the outrage in this? (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/24/barack-obama-palestine-funding-221-million-final-hours)

You have issues with a 10% tariff - which a lot of our "friends" are already doing - but no outrage over Obama printing money and giving it away?

Why should there be? Did you read the whole article? Or look for other sources of what really happened?

From your article:

Quote

"This is actually money that the Israelis have traditionally supported us giving to the Palestinians because it goes toward things like security reform and making sure the Palestinian Authority doesn't collapse, and that's actually in Israel's security interest," Harf said.

The money given to the Palestinians coincides with the $3.8 billion-a-year memorandum signed between the U.S. and Israel in September, guaranteeing a set level of funding for the Israelis over the next 10 years.

"We felt that was very important to sign under the Obama Administration to make sure the Israelis knew they were going to keep getting support from us," Harf said.

Harf said she does not think President Donald Trump will reverse this $221 million in funding.

And from other sources (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/01/23/us/politics/ap-us-united-states-palestinians.html?_r=0):

Quote

Congress had initially approved the Palestinian funding in budget years 2015 and 2016, but at least two GOP lawmakers — Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Kay Granger of Texas, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee — had placed holds on it over moves the Palestinian Authority had taken to seek membership in international organizations. Congressional holds are generally respected by the executive branch but are not legally binding after funds have been allocated.

^ I read the article and I don't agree with it. Nor do I agree with giving money to Israel.

We are a nation that is $20 trillion in the hole and can't afford to have everyone living on our tit indefinitely.

It seemed that you were implying that he did something illegal or underhanded in your prior post. When its something that's been voted on, and process was followed. Why should there be outrage over something that was already taken through the process?

^ I read the article and I don't agree with it. Nor do I agree with giving money to Israel.

We are a nation that is $20 trillion in the hole and can't afford to have everyone living on our tit indefinitely.

It seemed that you were implying that he did something illegal or underhanded in your prior post. When its something that's been voted on, and process was followed. Why should there be outrage over something that was already taken through the process?

I don't know. I just don't know. I think my underwear has spots of blood and it may be my time of the month. I think I'm going to log off for the night.

Fun fact, the USA bombs countries into chaos and hellish conditions, and then bans immigration from those same countries. If you ever wondered why people around the world might hate the USA, there is a pretty big reason right there.

Fun fact, the USA bombs countries into chaos and hellish conditions, and then bans immigration from those same countries. If you ever wondered why people around the world might hate the USA, there is a pretty big reason right there.

Fun fact, the USA bombs countries into chaos and hellish conditions, and then bans immigration from those same countries. If you ever wondered why people around the world might hate the USA, there is a pretty big reason right there.

That's not done by Trump. That's done by all other US presidents - mostly swampy people who have at least one foot stuck in the Military Industrial Complex swamp.

Trump's contribution is the most expedient. Since these guys hate the US by now, the best way is to keep them from coming here.

Another thing to note: Obama raised the national debt from $10.626 trillion to $19.78 trillion. If I had $9.2 trillion to spend that wasn't mine, I could make the economy look pretty good for a number of years too.

Fun fact, the USA bombs countries into chaos and hellish conditions, and then bans immigration from those same countries. If you ever wondered why people around the world might hate the USA, there is a pretty big reason right there.

Trump admin is floating the idea of a 10% tariff on ALL electronics and media not manufactured in America.

That includes but is not limited to all computer components, anything on a disc, phones, your keyboards... pretty much all electronics since America has limited, expensive, and poorly designed manufacturing processes for these items.

Now what do you have to say about a 10% additional tax on everything you care about?

No doubt it will suck for all the Philosophy grads expecting $75k out of College.

For the rest of us in the real world we'll simply curb our spending. I know that seems like such an alien concept but there was a time when people didn't buy something unless they had the money. Maybe it will help separate "need" from "want".

There's gonna be a riot if he does this..

Because there are simply too many things made outside the us right now... and @ 10% + sales tax, no one making 40k will be able to afford anything at all..

There have been people rioting since 2016. As they say - American's have short attention spans and I guess I just got used to them.

Where was the outrage in this? (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/24/barack-obama-palestine-funding-221-million-final-hours)

You have issues with a 10% tariff - which a lot of our "friends" are already doing - but no outrage over Obama printing money and giving it away?

Just a testament to his awful job in office.

What's your evidence for this statement? Can you think of a few things that he might have done well or accomplished?

Fun fact, the USA bombs countries into chaos and hellish conditions, and then bans immigration from those same countries. If you ever wondered why people around the world might hate the USA, there is a pretty big reason right there.

Fun fact, the USA bombs countries into chaos and hellish conditions, and then bans immigration from those same countries. If you ever wondered why people around the world might hate the USA, there is a pretty big reason right there.

What's not true about verifiable past and current meddling in the affairs of other countries, current military action in four of those countries (Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen), and the anti-immigrant and anti-refugee executive orders regrading these countries yesterday?

Fun fact, the USA bombs countries into chaos and hellish conditions, and then bans immigration from those same countries. If you ever wondered why people around the world might hate the USA, there is a pretty big reason right there.

Think about it this way.. If YOU"RE smart enough to realize it's bad foreign policy.. Don't you think professional foreign policy makers know that as well ?

Yet they did it anyway.. WHY, what was the reason.. ??

short sighted people continue to debate and point fingers, they're looking at this completely wrong..

The more the middle east is at its own throat,, the more easily the US can buy their oil, and sell them Made In America Guns..

Yes, in a way, but I'd argue incompetence (or at least being misguided) over malefeasance.

We used to believe that communism was a real threat to our western democratic ideals, and we did all kinds of things to obliquely fight it--things to extend our influence. Things like arming what would become the taliban in Afghanistan to help fight the soviets in their war. Things like organizing the ascension to power of a western friendly dictator in Iran (and other places).

But things didn't work out how we thought, and then we helped install a western friendly dictator in Iraq to fight the mess we made in Iran. Then we fought that same person when he invaded western friendly Kuwait. As an aftermath to *that* decision we had to patrol Iraqi air space which necessitated maintaining military bases in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Well, the saudis might say one thing to our face, but after the USS Cole, the Khobar towers (look it up), and finally 9/11, it was clear to our government that we had to get the hell out of Saudi Arabia. Now, why it has been so important to protect the Saudi royals I will never know, but we decided it was easier to make up something about WMDs than to be truthful: the Saudis were selling us out, we had to get out of that country, and that meant Saddam Hussein had to go.

Which brings us to the messes in northern Iraq, Syria, and Yemen that most here are more familiar with. So while oil plays a role, it's not the only (or even most important) thing, and it's 70 years of cascading decisions that have to be considered. I think this had a significant impact on how Obama handled Syria (or didn't handle, depending on perspective).

But one last question for those here who still support Trump: with this last executive order banning entry for residents of certain countries, how do you feel about Saudi Arabia not being on that list? Why would someone who proclaims this to be about being tough on terrorism exclude many, but allow the country that sent us 3/4 of the 9/11 actors? Why would someone who yells about "radical Islamic" people allow the country that sponsors the most radical sect (Wahhabism)?

Saudi Arabia has always been a special case because it supplies so much oil.

If we were not hypocritical, we would support and encourage free, open, secular democracies as our preferred allies, rather than shoring up horrible monarchies, theocracies, and/or otherwise bad specimens of governance because they are "friendly" to our desires ....

What's your evidence for this statement? Can you think of a few things that he might have done well or accomplished?

That's the problem with politics in the US today. People increasingly fall into the trap of ideological differences that the politicians have set (bread and circuses), while pursuing their own agendas. Obama didn't/couldn't have done anything correctly or right, because he falls into a different bucket. Trump can't/won't do anything right because he falls into a different bucket.

This is the failure of the imagination; reducing others whose beliefs and motivations you don’t understand to a literally subhuman category. You can use other words: barbarian, bigot, racist, sexist, hater, etc. You 'other' people that don't agree with you in this fashion:

I am a rational/good human being.

Because I am a rational/good human being, I believe X.

If you do not believe X, you are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.

Because you are ignorant, stupid, or evil, it is useless to debate with you and pointless to listen to you.

It is written by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist. Haidt is a self-described liberal, but his research focuses on morality – its emotional foundations, cultural variations, and development.

Haidt basically argues that conservatives and liberals disagree because they are being motivated by different moral matrixes. When they see each other as “evil”, it’s because they don’t understand the moral matrix the other is operating from (Haidt is not a moral relativist, and does believe in evil, he just doesn’t apply the word to most political or philosophical disagreements).

I don’t agree with everything that Haidt says, but I recommend this book to everybody. He develops and works with a few axioms, two of which are:

There’s more to morality than harm and fairness.

Morality binds and blinds.

The second axiom sounds purely negative, but it’s not; rather it’s the acknowledgement that while a strong moral code can be a powerful tool for personal happiness and social order, at the same time it blinds us to the validity of competing moral codes.

The entire book is an exercise in the scholarly and scientific application of imagination to the problem of moral social conflict, and especially to the necessity of understanding the other side. And this is important. Understanding does not mean agreement, and without proselytizing conservatism to liberals or liberalism to conservatives, Haidt (I think successfully), communicates how the artificial sides fall into specific views, and, I think anyone who reads this book will come a long way toward understanding how people, in a general and specific manner (family, friends, people that should 'know better'), voted differently in this divisive election.

Saudi Arabia has always been a special case because it supplies so much oil.

Hmmm. Is that really it?

Show Image

(http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/04/gr-oilprod-300.gif)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production

I know they are the largest producer. But they aren't our (USA) largest supplier. In fact, as shown in the imports graphic, we import about the same amount from Mexico, and it appears they don't deserve special treatment. I think what you might find is that it isn't about USA oil at all, but again global politics and influence (look up where Europe gets their oil imports from).

I know they are the largest producer. But they aren't our (USA) largest supplier. In fact, as shown in the imports graphic, we import about the same amount from Mexico, and it appears they don't deserve special treatment. I think what you might find is that it isn't about USA oil at all, but again global politics and influence (look up where Europe gets their oil imports from).

So you don't think the fact that Saudi Arabia produces the most oil has any influence on global politics?

I know they are the largest producer. But they aren't our (USA) largest supplier. In fact, as shown in the imports graphic, we import about the same amount from Mexico, and it appears they don't deserve special treatment. I think what you might find is that it isn't about USA oil at all, but again global politics and influence (look up where Europe gets their oil imports from).

So you don't think the fact that Saudi Arabia produces the most oil has any influence on global politics?

Also this in relation to your oil import statement:

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-energy-how-much-what-type-and-where-from/

No, they *totally* influence the global landscape, and having significant control of OPEC matters a lot. My point was around how people usually say that the US is meddling in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing to the US, and that's not entirely true. You can't cripple Russia's economy if you have to keep buying their oil, which means if we want our (USAs) sanctions to stick, then we need to make sure the EU has other sources. See also: why fight over who controls Syria and their Mediterranean port.

It's about more than simple resources is my big point, just because I hear people too often saying it's about our (USA) oil buying.

OK. Well in that case I agree with you. My objection was that fohat did not specify that Saudi Arabia supplied oil to America. I would like to think that America is concerned enough about the rest of the world to be extra considerate of Saudi Arabia for all the reasons you just specified.

My objection was that fohat did not specify that Saudi Arabia supplied oil to America. I would like to think that America is concerned enough about the rest of the world to be extra considerate of Saudi Arabia for all the reasons you just specified.

I did not specify "to America" and I don't think that the US is concerned enough about the rest of the world for its (the world's) own sake as it is for how global conditions affect the US.

What's your evidence for this statement? Can you think of a few things that he might have done well or accomplished?

That's the problem with politics in the US today. People increasingly fall into the trap of ideological differences that the politicians have set (bread and circuses), while pursuing their own agendas. Obama didn't/couldn't have done anything correctly or right, because he falls into a different bucket. Trump can't/won't do anything right because he falls into a different bucket.

This is the failure of the imagination; reducing others whose beliefs and motivations you don’t understand to a literally subhuman category. You can use other words: barbarian, bigot, racist, sexist, hater, etc. You 'other' people that don't agree with you in this fashion:

I am a rational/good human being.

Because I am a rational/good human being, I believe X.

If you do not believe X, you are either ignorant, stupid, or evil.

Because you are ignorant, stupid, or evil, it is useless to debate with you and pointless to listen to you.

It is written by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist. Haidt is a self-described liberal, but his research focuses on morality – its emotional foundations, cultural variations, and development.

Haidt basically argues that conservatives and liberals disagree because they are being motivated by different moral matrixes. When they see each other as “evil”, it’s because they don’t understand the moral matrix the other is operating from (Haidt is not a moral relativist, and does believe in evil, he just doesn’t apply the word to most political or philosophical disagreements).

I don’t agree with everything that Haidt says, but I recommend this book to everybody. He develops and works with a few axioms, two of which are:

There’s more to morality than harm and fairness.

Morality binds and blinds.

The second axiom sounds purely negative, but it’s not; rather it’s the acknowledgement that while a strong moral code can be a powerful tool for personal happiness and social order, at the same time it blinds us to the validity of competing moral codes.

The entire book is an exercise in the scholarly and scientific application of imagination to the problem of moral social conflict, and especially to the necessity of understanding the other side. And this is important. Understanding does not mean agreement, and without proselytizing conservatism to liberals or liberalism to conservatives, Haidt (I think successfully), communicates how the artificial sides fall into specific views, and, I think anyonee acknowledgement that while a strong moral code can be a powerful tool for personal happiness and social order, at the same time it blinds us to the validity of competing moral codes.

The entire book is an exercise in the scholarly and scientific who reads this book will come a long way toward understanding how people, in a general and specific manner (family, friends, people that should 'know better'), voted differently in this divisive election.

I'm pretty sure that your post is longer than the attention span of anyone that would benefit from reading it. Let alone an entire book.

I do agree, understanding is absolutely essential. Yet if we are not even willing to understand the other person's morals and values and how that influences their voting, but rather yell at each other in partisan anger, how would we get to that point?

It's important to consider where most Americans are obtaining their political arguments these days. I imagine that it is not from healthy debate among peers, exchanging policy ideas based on competing evidence in order to convince the other party, accessing a variety of sources and analysis, or whatever traditional idea of political discussion that we have. No, most of us seem to be getting our political information in snippets from social media and TV news, close friends and family, our deeply held values, our human nature, or our favorite website, most of which serve to create an opposition bogeyman that must be defeated at any cost and we need to stick by our man, no matter what they say or do. In fact, the powers that be love to pit us against each other and choose sides, because it benefits their ability to impose their agenda.

There is a dangerous reductionism that occurs when we simply heap labels upon people because they are reduced to that label and then we can treat them as sub-human and be relieved from treating them with dignity. See terms like liberals, racist, idiot, elite, immigrant, refugee, Muslim, Mexican, Chinese...the list goes on. Which is why I cannot emphasize enough the importance of individual rights and considering of the humanity in each person.

I heard an interesting analysis of the election the other day. What might matter the most in any election is how people feel about their economic situation and that of the jurisdiction, not necessarily what the evidence shows about the economic situation. Tap into that and you can ride it to victory.

Of course, but this is the longest running TP4 thread I have ever seen. Its a nice bit less charged now that the election process is over.

I hope it stays charged as it becomes increasing obvious that the Republicans and Trump administration are attempting to dismantle our struggling democracy and use for their own plunder, capping off a process that has been underway for decades.

The world had been going down the wrong path for too long, so eventually the old order would give way.

Unlimited mass migration, unlimited trade ignoring the welfare of the working class in one's own country, unconditional PC and acceptance of other religions without regard to the social tensions and conflicts, eventually it would have been too much to swallow for many people.

You may disagree with me, but plenty of people agree with me and that’s why Trump has considerable support despite his many flaws.

Trump may have won with a minority of the popular vote, but he won with a huge majority in the electoral college. If you consider counties, this victory is even more lopsided: 2623 to 489 counties for Hillary most of which are urban and pretty small.

If the USA were to split into 2 countries now, the ‘deplorables’ would own over 90% of the continental USA and Hillary would have just a handful of coastal cities plus Chicago. Remove all the illegal immigrants plus the children of illegal immigrants who got free citizenships and the vote just because they were born here, and Hillary’s majority will vanish.

If you are born to illegal immigrants, you should not be given citizenship. It’s common sense. If I snuck onto your land, I am a trespasser. If I give birth to children while trespassing on your land, can my children gain inheritance rights to YOUR land?

If George Soros disagrees, I think the best thing the 'deplorables' can do is to send pregnant activists into Soros' mansion to give birth. Tah dah, now George Soros will have to pay for the kids' education and welfare and they gain inheritance rights. :thumb:

The world had been going down the wrong path for too long, so eventually the old order would give way.

Unlimited mass migration, unlimited trade ignoring the welfare of the working class in one's own country, unconditional PC and acceptance of other religions without regard to the social tensions and conflicts, eventually it would have been too much to swallow for many people.

You may disagree with me, but plenty of people agree with me and that’s why Trump has considerable support despite his many flaws.

Trump may have won with a minority of the popular vote, but he won with a huge majority in the electoral college. If you consider counties, this victory is even more lopsided: 2623 to 489 counties for Hillary most of which are urban and pretty small.

If the USA were to split into 2 countries now, the ‘deplorables’ would own over 90% of the continental USA and Hillary would have just a handful of coastal cities plus Chicago. Remove all the illegal immigrants plus the children of illegal immigrants who got free citizenships and the vote just because they were born here, and Hillary’s majority will vanish.

If you are born to illegal immigrants, you should not be given citizenship. It’s common sense. If I snuck onto your land, I am a trespasser. If I give birth to children while trespassing on your land, can my children gain inheritance rights to YOUR land?

If George Soros disagrees, I think the best thing the 'deplorables' can do is to send pregnant activists into Soros' mansion to give birth. Tah dah, now George Soros will have to pay for the kids' education and welfare and they gain inheritance rights. :thumb:

Hey dantan, is what is happening in South Dakota par of your "rebalancing"? The people (mostly republican, white, low-ish education levels) put an anti-corruption bill on the ballot, passed it, and the state legislature just called for emergency procedures to be able to eliminate it. You can read about it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/24/south-dakota-republicans-are-about-to-get-rid-of-the-states-first-independent-ethics-commission/?utm_term=.d905051a86fa This won't the the last time in the coming years where lawmakers will fight to gut all of our voting rights and powers.

There's a word for when a single party system that rules from the top, ruthlessly and quickly, for the interest of the few under the guise of doing what's best for the nation because others can't be trusted. And it's not "rebalancing"

My objection was that fohat did not specify that Saudi Arabia supplied oil to America. I would like to think that America is concerned enough about the rest of the world to be extra considerate of Saudi Arabia for all the reasons you just specified.

I did not specify "to America" and I don't think that the US is concerned enough about the rest of the world for its (the world's) own sake as it is for how global conditions affect the US.

What I meant was that I was trying to defend you by saying you didn't specify America and yet the counter argument was how Saudi Arabia doesn't supply much oil to America, hence my links to show how much they supply the rest of the world.

It's really not about policy or the sum you measure... It's about awakening..

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

Sigh............... ok.. don't usually like talking about abortion, because people often get the human-rights aspect of it muddled with the BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONAL aspect of it..

Here goes..

ABORTION is the consequence of a Hijacking maneuver.

This Hijacking is in the form of inconsequential-sex.. WHICH IS equivalent in practice to any forms of drug use..

Money (The Tabulator-y aspect of modern economic metrics), must be put aside for a moment in this discussion.

"" If ya'll computer guys remember , they give you that thought experiment in 101, what would happen if a computer could press its own buttons..

If you program a reward system for an AI, then you give it the ability to press that rewards button regardless of the work it is tasked to do..

What would happen. ??""

That is fundamentally what DRUG USE is..

When one Eat when not hungry..

One drinks alcohol..

One does Hard Drugs..

Two have Sex with no-intention / no-ability to produce or raise children..

ALL of these things WHILE NOT absolutely without purpose, is among the least productive tasks.. because productivity is when you take Hammer to Natural resources.. I'm not Marxist, but this is just one thing they got right.

So.. keep in mind.. Limiting abortion may not be the right way to go about it... But it is NOT something that's fundamentally wrong for a GOVERNMENT policy..

Governments need children.. The Nation needs Children..

The United States is lucky to have a great piece of land, attracting foreigners to join the cause.. (currently a necessity for maintaining population)

But with all this great stuff, People still have fewer kids than they should be having. Our Great American birthrate is BELOW 2.0

This is due to the fundamental plight to all procreative systems, when Pleasure is disconnected from the PURPOSE behind those pleasures...

Abortion is your right.. You own your body, FINE, but you'll probably get it done one way or another.. it's really not that hard a physical task to accomplish.. so the LAW has little to do with practical applications

If we have extremely efficient system to facilitate the task, it would only further promotes inconsequential pleasure seeking, WHICH is GENERALLY Not good for society..

Now, as for the role of sex... It's the most powerful NATURAL motivator humans possess.. Because reproduction is a vital function for all lifeforms.. Modernity has made light of this in face of other rewards....

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

I usually stay out of stupid threads like this that become pointless but please do yourself some reading before responding. Trump NEVER limited abortion his executive order states US Funding for international family preparation can not go towards abortions or organizations that fund or are active in abortions. Funding = Tax payer dollars. Ask me NO i don't think my tax money that I pay dearly each year should go for international abortions, it needs to go back into rebuilding the US infrastructure. Saying tax payers money will not go to abortions is not limiting it is telling people/countries to pay for their own abortions. The US gives 600million for funding of international family preparation and supplies think about that number for a little. It is more than most of on this forum combined will make in a life time that goes to help international families why who helps us in the US?

People have lost sight abortion is not a form of birth control, that is the problem we have people using abortion as a form of birth control. Maybe people should learn what causes child birth and maybe look into doing something else with there past time instead of baby making. This is the problem killing a child because the parents didn't know how to say maybe wear a condom (before you say it they can't afford protection than it goes further to say maybe they shouldn't be doing it, I didn't go Ferrari shopping because why I can't afford it) or maybe we should just watch a movie is murdering a child..... Abortion for a rape victim or a mentally ill person is a completely different issue and case all together tho I will say that.

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

I usually stay out of stupid threads like this that become pointless but please do yourself some reading before responding. Trump NEVER limited abortion his executive order states US Funding for international family preparation can not go towards abortions or organizations that fund or are active in abortions. Funding = Tax payer dollars. Ask me NO i don't think my tax money that I pay dearly each year should go for international abortions, it needs to go back into rebuilding the US infrastructure. Saying tax payers money will not go to abortions is not limiting it is telling people/countries to pay for their own abortions. The US gives 600million for funding of international family preparation and supplies think about that number for a little. It is more than most of on this forum combined will make in a life time that goes to help international families why who helps us in the US?

People have lost sight abortion is not a form of birth control, that is the problem we have people using abortion as a form of birth control. Maybe people should learn what causes child birth and maybe look into doing something else with there past time instead of baby making. This is the problem killing a child because the parents didn't know how to say maybe where a condom or maybe we should just watch a movie is murdering a child..... Abortion for a rape victim or a mentally ill person is a completely different issue and case all together tho I will say that.

/total agreement ....

Although I am always looking at the Process side to the procreative process, rather than the consequence side as you have..

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

I usually stay out of stupid threads like this that become pointless but please do yourself some reading before responding. Trump NEVER limited abortion his executive order states US Funding for international family preparation can not go towards abortions or organizations that fund or are active in abortions. Funding = Tax payer dollars. Ask me NO i don't think my tax money that I pay dearly each year should go for international abortions, it needs to go back into rebuilding the US infrastructure. Saying tax payers money will not go to abortions is not limiting it is telling people/countries to pay for their own abortions. The US gives 600million for funding of international family preparation and supplies think about that number for a little. It is more than most of on this forum combined will make in a life time that goes to help international families why who helps us in the US?

People have lost sight abortion is not a form of birth control, that is the problem we have people using abortion as a form of birth control. Maybe people should learn what causes child birth and maybe look into doing something else with there past time instead of baby making. This is the problem killing a child because the parents didn't know how to say maybe wear a condom (before you say it they can't afford protection than it goes further to say maybe they shouldn't be doing it, I didn't go Ferrari shopping because why I can't afford it) or maybe we should just watch a movie is murdering a child..... Abortion for a rape victim or a mentally ill person is a completely different issue and case all together tho I will say that.

Apparently you usually stay out of *all* threads. This is a hell-of-a-first post. And you might (*might*) have an intellectual argument in there if the people who fight for defunding/banning/obstructing access to abortions weren't *also* working hard at fighting aforementioned education and access to prophylatics. Thus, this ends up as a thinly veiled argument to make sure that women are kept under control by any means necessary.

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

I usually stay out of stupid threads like this that become pointless but please do yourself some reading before responding. Trump NEVER limited abortion his executive order states US Funding for international family preparation can not go towards abortions or organizations that fund or are active in abortions. Funding = Tax payer dollars. Ask me NO i don't think my tax money that I pay dearly each year should go for international abortions, it needs to go back into rebuilding the US infrastructure. Saying tax payers money will not go to abortions is not limiting it is telling people/countries to pay for their own abortions. The US gives 600million for funding of international family preparation and supplies think about that number for a little. It is more than most of on this forum combined will make in a life time that goes to help international families why who helps us in the US?

People have lost sight abortion is not a form of birth control, that is the problem we have people using abortion as a form of birth control. Maybe people should learn what causes child birth and maybe look into doing something else with there past time instead of baby making. This is the problem killing a child because the parents didn't know how to say maybe wear a condom (before you say it they can't afford protection than it goes further to say maybe they shouldn't be doing it, I didn't go Ferrari shopping because why I can't afford it) or maybe we should just watch a movie is murdering a child..... Abortion for a rape victim or a mentally ill person is a completely different issue and case all together tho I will say that.

Apparently you usually stay out of *all* threads apparently. This is a hell-of-a-first post. And you might (*might*) have an intellectual argument in there if the people who fight for defunding/banning/obstructing access to abortions weren't *also* working hard at fighting aforementioned education and access to prophylatics. Thus, this ends up as a thinly veiled argument to make sure that women are kept under control by any means necessary.

Not every policy is going to have isolate outcomes.. and the majority of these modern day (MAJOR) topics are ultimately inconsequential except for News Headlines..

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

I usually stay out of stupid threads like this that become pointless but please do yourself some reading before responding. Trump NEVER limited abortion his executive order states US Funding for international family preparation can not go towards abortions or organizations that fund or are active in abortions. Funding = Tax payer dollars. Ask me NO i don't think my tax money that I pay dearly each year should go for international abortions, it needs to go back into rebuilding the US infrastructure. Saying tax payers money will not go to abortions is not limiting it is telling people/countries to pay for their own abortions. The US gives 600million for funding of international family preparation and supplies think about that number for a little. It is more than most of on this forum combined will make in a life time that goes to help international families why who helps us in the US?

People have lost sight abortion is not a form of birth control, that is the problem we have people using abortion as a form of birth control. Maybe people should learn what causes child birth and maybe look into doing something else with there past time instead of baby making. This is the problem killing a child because the parents didn't know how to say maybe wear a condom (before you say it they can't afford protection than it goes further to say maybe they shouldn't be doing it, I didn't go Ferrari shopping because why I can't afford it) or maybe we should just watch a movie is murdering a child..... Abortion for a rape victim or a mentally ill person is a completely different issue and case all together tho I will say that.

Apparently you usually stay out of *all* threads. This is a hell-of-a-first post. And you might (*might*) have an intellectual argument in there if the people who fight for defunding/banning/obstructing access to abortions weren't *also* working hard at fighting aforementioned education and access to prophylatics. Thus, this ends up as a thinly veiled argument to make sure that women are kept under control by any means necessary.

Why is US tax payers problem to fund all of that?? How many other countries contribute to this fund? The argument still stands, why should US tax dollars go to fund international happy hour? Who helps the US tax payers? I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one. Funny thing is people is looking for any reason to hate this man, the funny thing is the this act was put in place long before his time by Reagan (1973) and has been put back in and out by each office change since than. For people that want to pay for abortions for international couples please do, nothing stops them from donating. Funny how so many in the US go hungry, go without any help while barely making wages to keep food on there table for there family but as a country we aren't worried about that we are worried about international happy hour and funding the aftermath of it.

Why is US tax payers problem to fund all of that?? How many other countries contribute to this fund? The argument still stands, why should US tax dollars go to fund international happy hour? Who helps the US tax payers? I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one. Funny thing is people is looking for any reason to hate this man, the funny thing is the this act was put in place long before his time by Reagan (1973) and has been put back in and out by each office change since than. For people that want to pay for abortions for international couples please do, nothing stops them from donating. Funny how so many in the US go hungry, go without any help while barely making wages to keep food on there table for there family but as a country we aren't worried about that we are worried about international happy hour and funding the aftermath of it.

Why is US tax payers problem to fund all of that?? How many other countries contribute to this fund? The argument still stands, why should US tax dollars go to fund international happy hour? Who helps the US tax payers? I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one. Funny thing is people is looking for any reason to hate this man, the funny thing is the this act was put in place long before his time by Reagan (1973) and has been put back in and out by each office change since than. For people that want to pay for abortions for international couples please do, nothing stops them from donating. Funny how so many in the US go hungry, go without any help while barely making wages to keep food on there table for there family but as a country we aren't worried about that we are worried about international happy hour and funding the aftermath of it.

Your first post is a discussion.

You're just picking fights now.. hahahaha..

Sorry didn't mean for it to be good sir and I really don't mean to single out the other gentleman. My point is this act was put in place I do understand the UN does works with organizations to help population control. My point is only as adults we should understand for each action there is a a consequence. Cause and affect. Provide help to those that truly need it but murdering babies because the adults do understand the consequence to there actions is needless. Not meaning to pick a fight but as a working class guy with a family I am sick of everyone else living off of our hard earned tax dollars while the rest of us do the best we can and live and pay for our consequences.

Sorry for the horrible spelling and grammar my goodness this screen protector is horrible on my phone lol

I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one.

I think you will find lots of us who want to ensure access for all Americans to a full range of medical care (which includes prophylactics, emergency prophylactics, and abortion) that is efficient and covered by the collective wealth of our country (I.e. Taxes) so no one has to bear the burden of onerous costs to get the care they need. You just might not find them with an R attached to their name. Hope your kiddo is doing well.

As far as the world goes, I think our modest investment pays off, as peace and prosperity in the world is great for our prosperity. How much that investment should be is always up for debate, but I don't think any rational person puts the correct amount at zero.

Why is US tax payers problem to fund all of that?? How many other countries contribute to this fund? The argument still stands, why should US tax dollars go to fund international happy hour? Who helps the US tax payers? I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one. Funny thing is people is looking for any reason to hate this man, the funny thing is the this act was put in place long before his time by Reagan (1973) and has been put back in and out by each office change since than. For people that want to pay for abortions for international couples please do, nothing stops them from donating. Funny how so many in the US go hungry, go without any help while barely making wages to keep food on there table for there family but as a country we aren't worried about that we are worried about international happy hour and funding the aftermath of it.

Your first post is a discussion.

You're just picking fights now.. hahahaha..

Sorry didn't mean for it to be good sir and I really don't mean to single out the other gentleman. My point is this act was put in place I do understand the UN does works with organizations to help population control. My point is only as adults we should understand for each action there is a a consequence. Cause and affect. Provide help to those that truly need it but murdering babies because the adults do understand the consequence to there actions is needless. Not meaning to pick a fight but as a working class guy with a family I am sick of everyone else living off of our hard earned tax dollars while the rest of us do the best we can and live and pay for our consequences.

Sorry for the horrible spelling and grammar my goodness this screen protector is horrible on my phone lol

I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one.

I think you will find lots of us who want to ensure access for all Americans to a full range of medical care (which includes prophylactics, emergency prophylactics, and abortion) that is efficient and covered by the collective wealth of our country (I.e. Taxes) so no one has to bear the burden of onerous costs to get the care they need. You just might not find them with an R attached to their name. Hope your kiddo is doing well.

As far as the world goes, I think our modest investment pays off, as peace and prosperity in the world is great for our prosperity. How much that investment should be is always up for debate, but I don't think any rational person puts the correct amount at zero.

Well.. ok... but as you've said.. it's an investment.. foreign aid is not aid.. it's a business venture/ incentive..

I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one.

I think you will find lots of us who want to ensure access for all Americans to a full range of medical care (which includes prophylactics, emergency prophylactics, and abortion) that is efficient and covered by the collective wealth of our country (I.e. Taxes) so no one has to bear the burden of onerous costs to get the care they need. You just might not find them with an R attached to their name. Hope your kiddo is doing well.

As far as the world goes, I think our modest investment pays off, as peace and prosperity in the world is great for our prosperity. How much that investment should be is always up for debate, but I don't think any rational person puts the correct amount at zero.

Well.. ok... but as you've said.. it's an investment.. foreign aid is not aid.. it's a business venture/ incentive..

So, in that way, the nation enters the battle ground..

It's a fight ..

I don't think it's a competition. But geek hack, OT, and a TP thread isn't really where I want to dive deep on macroeconomic theory.

I haven't seen anyone chiming in to help any tax payers with child birth cost? I didn't see any organizations/individuals chiming in when my child was in the NICU for almost a month, not a single one.

I think you will find lots of us who want to ensure access for all Americans to a full range of medical care (which includes prophylactics, emergency prophylactics, and abortion) that is efficient and covered by the collective wealth of our country (I.e. Taxes) so no one has to bear the burden of onerous costs to get the care they need. You just might not find them with an R attached to their name. Hope your kiddo is doing well.

As far as the world goes, I think our modest investment pays off, as peace and prosperity in the world is great for our prosperity. How much that investment should be is always up for debate, but I don't think any rational person puts the correct amount at zero.

Well.. ok... but as you've said.. it's an investment.. foreign aid is not aid.. it's a business venture/ incentive..

So, in that way, the nation enters the battle ground..

It's a fight ..

I don't think it's a competition. But geek hack, OT, and a TP thread isn't really where I want to dive deep on macroeconomic theory.

My point is.. what an abortion policy means to you personally or even WOMEN of America.. has very little to do with its actual purpose when proposed by the government.

The government isn't a belief system.. it's a managerial entity to promote growth..

Abortion is your right.. You own your body, FINE, but you'll probably get it done one way or another.. it's really not that hard a physical task to accomplish.. so the LAW has little to do with practical applications

If we have extremely efficient system to facilitate the task, it would only further promotes inconsequential pleasure seeking, WHICH is GENERALLY Not good for society..

I deleted the first bit because it doesn't make any sense. But this second bit is actually a huge problem in the attitude towards abortion.

If people want to get an abortion, they are going to get one, you are right. But with these plans, there is less advice about abortions, meaning people don't know where the safe places are to go. This increases the risk of suffering serious injury or death to a woman attempting to go through alternate routes.

Wanting an abortion is not due to drug taking or "pleasure seeking". Birth control does fail, vasectomies do fail. For some of these people, there is no other option, other than abortion. Nobody WANTS to get an abortion. It's not like; aaaah, if I get pregnant I will just get an abortion. It is a horrendous and traumatic experience. If abortion was illegal, these people would still get abortions. And a great many more people would die due to the lack of regulation or expertise.

How does limiting abortions and ignoring climate change benefit humanity?

I don't see how you can justify either of those things? Even being as totally dense as you are? Usually I'm very tolerant of what you say tp, but I cannot see how you can possibly think that either of those things are good for anybody???

More

I usually stay out of stupid threads like this that become pointless but please do yourself some reading before responding. Trump NEVER limited abortion his executive order states US Funding for international family preparation can not go towards abortions or organizations that fund or are active in abortions. Funding = Tax payer dollars. Ask me NO i don't think my tax money that I pay dearly each year should go for international abortions, it needs to go back into rebuilding the US infrastructure. Saying tax payers money will not go to abortions is not limiting it is telling people/countries to pay for their own abortions. The US gives 600million for funding of international family preparation and supplies think about that number for a little. It is more than most of on this forum combined will make in a life time that goes to help international families why who helps us in the US?

People have lost sight abortion is not a form of birth control, that is the problem we have people using abortion as a form of birth control. Maybe people should learn what causes child birth and maybe look into doing something else with there past time instead of baby making. This is the problem killing a child because the parents didn't know how to say maybe wear a condom (before you say it they can't afford protection than it goes further to say maybe they shouldn't be doing it, I didn't go Ferrari shopping because why I can't afford it) or maybe we should just watch a movie is murdering a child..... Abortion for a rape victim or a mentally ill person is a completely different issue and case all together tho I will say that.

You are right, he hasn't limited abortions. Not directly. This is a ploy to appeal to both sides, but it is a stepping stone to putting a very real limit on abortions.

I am not against abortion, but let me point out, an abortion costs a lot. $350-$5000 in countries where it is legal. Average seems to be $500.

Condoms don’t even cost 0.1% as much.

For the cost of one abortion, you can fund condoms for years.

I don’t see why taxpayer money should go towards funding abortion if significant numbers of people are strongly opposed to it. Trump hasn’t outlawed abortion, nor should it be outlawed. Just don’t use other people’s money to pay for something that ultimately you are responsible for.

In reply to Chyros:Your comparison of Trump to Hitler is a really cheap, facile and misleading comparison.Hitler was a good orator who stirred the masses. So was Winston Churchill. Hitler = Churchill?Roosevelt came up with policies that took care of the jobless working masses. Hitler had similar selling points. Hitler = Roosevelt?As Nicholas Kristof pointed out, there are many ways on which you can attack Trump. But liberals are getting all emotional and behaving deplorably and attacking in meaningless ways. Such as that gay professor who attacked Ivanka Trump on a flight when she was with her kids, and tweeted about it like some kind of great hero. Or that SNL writer who tried to make a 10 year old into a school shooter. Or even that Buzzfeed leak of allegedly totally ridiculous antics by Donald Trump in Moscow.

When Obama was elected I was very irritated to see the right wing make all kinds of racist comments such as calling him Omuzzie or comparing his family to monkeys. But now it is obvious the left wing is no less hateful and no less capable of dressing their hate up as righteousness.

Abortion is your right.. You own your body, FINE, but you'll probably get it done one way or another.. it's really not that hard a physical task to accomplish.. so the LAW has little to do with practical applications

If we have extremely efficient system to facilitate the task, it would only further promotes inconsequential pleasure seeking, WHICH is GENERALLY Not good for society..

Wanting an abortion is not due to drug taking or "pleasure seeking". Birth control does fail, vasectomies do fail. For some of these people, there is no other option, other than abortion. Nobody WANTS to get an abortion. It's not like; aaaah, if I get pregnant I will just get an abortion. It is a horrendous and traumatic experience. If abortion was illegal, these people would still get abortions. And a great many more people would die due to the lack of regulation or expertise.

The human procreative process is very different from pre-society.

By design it is the BEST feeling thing a human being can experience naturally.

Feeling good at no consequence IS drug seeking..

There's no real difference..

The entire system of (Feeling good) is designed around writing into memory, a completed task which IN SOME WAY facilitated the procreative process..

Elective abortion may not Always be the result of pleasure seeking, but a stance on wide availability is a reduction in consequence of such pleasures..

That is bad for growth.. and is the reason every advanced nation has inadequate birth rate..

The world had been going down the wrong path for too long, so eventually the old order would give way.

Unlimited mass migration, unlimited trade ignoring the welfare of the working class in one's own country, unconditional PC and acceptance of other religions without regard to the social tensions and conflicts, eventually it would have been too much to swallow for many people.

You may disagree with me, but plenty of people agree with me and that’s why Trump has considerable support despite his many flaws.

Trump may have won with a minority of the popular vote, but he won with a huge majority in the electoral college. If you consider counties, this victory is even more lopsided: 2623 to 489 counties for Hillary most of which are urban and pretty small.

If the USA were to split into 2 countries now, the ‘deplorables’ would own over 90% of the continental USA and Hillary would have just a handful of coastal cities plus Chicago. Remove all the illegal immigrants plus the children of illegal immigrants who got free citizenships and the vote just because they were born here, and Hillary’s majority will vanish.

If you are born to illegal immigrants, you should not be given citizenship. It’s common sense. If I snuck onto your land, I am a trespasser. If I give birth to children while trespassing on your land, can my children gain inheritance rights to YOUR land?

If George Soros disagrees, I think the best thing the 'deplorables' can do is to send pregnant activists into Soros' mansion to give birth. Tah dah, now George Soros will have to pay for the kids' education and welfare and they gain inheritance rights. :thumb:

Hey dantan, is what is happening in South Dakota par of your "rebalancing"? The people (mostly republican, white, low-ish education levels) put an anti-corruption bill on the ballot, passed it, and the state legislature just called for emergency procedures to be able to eliminate it. You can read about it here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/24/south-dakota-republicans-are-about-to-get-rid-of-the-states-first-independent-ethics-commission/?utm_term=.d905051a86fa This won't the the last time in the coming years where lawmakers will fight to gut all of our voting rights and powers.

There's a word for when a single party system that rules from the top, ruthlessly and quickly, for the interest of the few under the guise of doing what's best for the nation because others can't be trusted. And it's not "rebalancing"

They are dong a similar thing in Maine, which just voted to use an approval voting system because a three-candidate race with plurality voting brought them two terms of Paul LePage, a miniature Trump occasionally says really, really dumb things.

Okay, okay, the bills I have seen are trying to prevent people from blocking traffic. Harmless right? Not really. What they do is slowly take away your rights, little by little, when you don't even notice what is happening. It starts with the ethics nonsense, restricting access to birth control methods, downright xenophobic immigration policies (all refugees and Muslim immigrants banned), resistance any kind of voting or electoral reform (except voting rights crackdowns based on conspiracy theories). Before you know it, something that affects you or you care about is being attacked.

But that's the way people are, we usually don't care until something directly affects us. It's only a matter of time before they come after something that affects or you wake up to it.

there are many ways on which you can attack Trump. But liberals are getting all emotional and behaving deplorably and attacking in meaningless ways.

My attacks on Trump revolve around core issues, and his demonstrable incompetence and personal problems are contributive but ancillary.

- Assaults on fundamental American principles such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. - Conflicts of interest throughout his administration which leave them beholden to specific entities rather than to will of the American people.- Nominations of incompetent candidates to high positions based on criteria other than their technical qualifications. - His apparent willingness to renege on this country's obligations around the world, and his disregard for the rule of law in general.

Clearly, I have also objected to nearly 100% of his stated policy positions, particularly those related to financial, social, and health-related issues, but those are based on my opinions and are separate from my fundamental objections to the ethical and legal issues listed above.

* * * * *

That said, it is hard not to get emotional about the deliberate fabrication and dissemination of outright falsehoods to the people who placed their trust in him.

there are many ways on which you can attack Trump. But liberals are getting all emotional and behaving deplorably and attacking in meaningless ways.

My attacks on Trump revolve around core issues, and his demonstrable incompetence and personal problems are contributive but ancillary.

- Assaults on fundamental American principles such as freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. - Conflicts of interest throughout his administration which leave them beholden to specific entities rather than to will of the American people.- Nominations of incompetent candidates to high positions based on criteria other than their technical qualifications. - His apparent willingness to renege on this country's obligations around the world, and his disregard for the rule of law in general.

- It's like in the matrix, they give us the belief that we're free, and as long as we feel like it's almost free, we're ok with it.. BUT INREALITY, the government and capitalist powers enslaves us with debt and ever-rising cost... Having basic freedoms are relatively benign relative to the bars we're in today..

- No large political entity are devoid of Capitalist influence, it has little to do with which one has more or less, THEY"RE all heavily involved..

- I assure you they're more competant than you are.. For one, they're where they are, and you're still working a day job.. Power is less about how much you can withstand than how much you are capable of GRASPING at..

- Laws are broken all the time.. You play the game however you can.. As a president, he's allowed to change the rules.. It might be colloquially being a ****, but That's always been fundamental to good leadership.

Sorry didn't mean for it to be good sir and I really don't mean to single out the other gentleman. My point is this act was put in place I do understand the UN does works with organizations to help population control. My point is only as adults we should understand for each action there is a a consequence. Cause and affect. Provide help to those that truly need it but murdering babies because the adults do understand the consequence to there actions is needless. Not meaning to pick a fight but as a working class guy with a family I am sick of everyone else living off of our hard earned tax dollars while the rest of us do the best we can and live and pay for our consequences.

I don’t see why taxpayer money should go towards funding abortion if significant numbers of people are strongly opposed to it. Trump hasn’t outlawed abortion, nor should it be outlawed. Just don’t use other people’s money to pay for something that ultimately you are responsible for.

Well, saying that the tax money is simply going towards mitigating unwanted side effects of procreation is quite misguided and is a drastically simplified dismissal of a significantly larger issue. For starters, the money is not only used for providing abortion related services, but also many other things such as basic contraceptives, cervical cancer screening, maternal health, STD prevention/treatment/education, and so on. By denying funding based on a small section of what an NGO does, it removes support for all of the above as well.

Secondly, as far as abortion itself is concerned, one also has to look at it through the lens of the countries that these NGOs serve in, not a modern one. We're talking countries where people don't have proper sex education, and have no idea what and how it actually happens. Countries where millions of uneducated underaged women get pregnant through no fault of their own. For that matter, how can people be responsible for their actions, especially women, if they are completely clueless, defenseless, and often basically kids? How can someone pin the blame for abortion on someone that may routinely be forced into marriage, raped in a war conflict, or abused by their family? Is the lack of empowerment of women in those countries really a thing that can be willfully ignored for the sake of simple hand-waving and excuses?

Earlier in the thread some voiced their discontent at overpopulation and high birth rates in some parts of the world, yet it's all quite conveniently forgotten when it's so easy to have a knee-jerk reaction. Well, here it is, the "liberal" solution to overpopulation - education, prevention, empowerment of women, and yes where needed, abortion. Helping countries cut down on high birth rates (primarily via education and birth control, not abortions), on vast poverty that results from that, is a far more preferred alternative than isolationism and eventual wars and migrant crises that will inevitably result. I wonder what is currently more acceptable, taxing people to help other countries, or taxing people to mingle in a conflict in other countries that is at least partially due to a population crisis. Relevant link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348), for those who can't bother to read long studies with statistics. Lack of access to basic contraceptives as the direct result of cut funding will only increase the rates of abortion and in turn since nobody will be able to perform them safely, high death rates for women attempting to have some semblance of normal life for themselves in abject poverty.

People are failing to see the forest for the trees, and when such outlooks become the de facto policies of the entire country it spits in the face of decades of hard scientific research and selfless work of millions that work and volunteer for NGOs in the hardest conditions possible. It seems that some are all too happy to start dancing on the freshly dug grave of progress.

The world had been going down the wrong path for too long, so eventually the old order would give way.

Yeah, that was basically Hitler's selling point, too.

Every successful/ powerful political leader acts like hitler..

And even if that were true, do you think that's the way it should be?

It's a HUMAN limitation.. there's no inherent EVIL to these people.. that's just the only way humans can claw to the top of other humans..

The insatiable drive (appetite) for power, to the point of sickness..

Think about how many people are in your path... Only a certain type of humans with that certain pathology can truly get ahead..

You're completely evading the question. Do you think the world should be ruled by people who, as you mentioned, are so sick with the lust for power that the only thing that matters to them is their own advancement? By people who will use minorities as scapegoats to further their agenda, and those who suppress political opposition to create a fascist dictatorship state?

The world had been going down the wrong path for too long, so eventually the old order would give way.

Yeah, that was basically Hitler's selling point, too.

Every successful/ powerful political leader acts like hitler..

And even if that were true, do you think that's the way it should be?

It's a HUMAN limitation.. there's no inherent EVIL to these people.. that's just the only way humans can claw to the top of other humans..

The insatiable drive (appetite) for power, to the point of sickness..

Think about how many people are in your path... Only a certain type of humans with that certain pathology can truly get ahead..

You're completely evading the question. Do you think the world should be ruled by people who, as you mentioned, are so sick with the lust for power that the only thing that matters to them is their own advancement? By people who will use minorities as scapegoats to further their agenda, and those who suppress political opposition to create a fascist dictatorship state?

I gave my answer.. You chose to not comprehend it.. hahahaha

Tp4 believes the world should be ran on a large mainframe, Only machines can make the objective decisions we need based on big-data.

As for the Humans.. My answer to that was simply, There is NO OTHER WAY to organize humans besides this pyramidal model of servitude..

In the human system, you're slaving one processor to merely an equally capable processor.. The only thing holding all this together is this veil of money/power which says, processor 1 came after processor 0, therefore do what processor 0 says..

Did anyone else catch Ashley Judd's recitation at the Women's event last week?

I should first say that I like to be gross at times.I love gross jokes; what can I say, I'm a guy. I must say however that Ashley Judd was able to do something that decades of foul mouthed comedians and worldly sailors couldn't. Her speech made me feel like puking. In her defense, she brought awareness to the fact that tampons are taxable ( I will gladly support the effort to make them tax exempt), but anything else that she was trying to say was lost in a vulgar stream of profane and hateful imagery. I know that Trump is partially to blame for lowering the bar of public discourse but just like it is inexcusable for Trump, so is it for anyone. I fear that men born straight will seek alternatives to women after hearing her graphic descriptions! I can only hope that the women cheering her on will be surprised and a little ashamed when they read a transcript of what she actually said.

On another note, I am also perplexed by not only her performance but also Meryl Streep's a few weeks earlier. They are both fine actresses. In fact, Streep may be among the best in the last century. I'm a decent public speaker but a horrible actor. Acting is hard. That is why I'm surprised by the almost amateurish overacting both displayed. Judd seemed relaxed but Streep was almost breathless; as if she was uncomfortable with her words.

The colorful speeches combined with the p---yhats are, no doubt, an appropriate appetizer for the main course they will be cooking up in the years to come.

The world had been going down the wrong path for too long, so eventually the old order would give way.

Yeah, that was basically Hitler's selling point, too.

Every successful/ powerful political leader acts like hitler..

And even if that were true, do you think that's the way it should be?

It's a HUMAN limitation.. there's no inherent EVIL to these people.. that's just the only way humans can claw to the top of other humans..

The insatiable drive (appetite) for power, to the point of sickness..

Think about how many people are in your path... Only a certain type of humans with that certain pathology can truly get ahead..

You're completely evading the question. Do you think the world should be ruled by people who, as you mentioned, are so sick with the lust for power that the only thing that matters to them is their own advancement? By people who will use minorities as scapegoats to further their agenda, and those who suppress political opposition to create a fascist dictatorship state?

I gave my answer.. You chose to not comprehend it.. hahahaha

Tp4 believes the world should be ran on a large mainframe, Only machines can make the objective decisions we need based on big-data.

As for the Humans.. My answer to that was simply, There is NO OTHER WAY to organize humans besides this pyramidal model of servitude..

In the human system, you're slaving one processor to merely an equally capable processor.. The only thing holding all this together is this veil of money/power which says, processor 1 came after processor 0, therefore do what processor 0 says..

And let me guess, we can no longer afford to let communists sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, either? :p

Did anyone else catch Ashley Judd's recitation at the Women's event last week?

I should first say that I like to be gross at times.I love gross jokes; what can I say, I'm a guy. I must say however that Ashley Judd was able to do something that decades of foul mouthed comedians and worldly sailors couldn't. Her speech made me feel like puking. In her defense, she brought awareness to the fact that tampons are taxable ( I will gladly support the effort to make them tax exempt), but anything else that she was trying to say was lost in a vulgar stream of profane and hateful imagery. I know that Trump is partially to blame for lowering the bar of public discourse but just like it is inexcusable for Trump, so is it for anyone. I fear that men born straight will seek alternatives to women after hearing her graphic descriptions! I can only hope that the women cheering her on will be surprised and a little ashamed when they read a transcript of what she actually said.

On another note, I am also perplexed by not only her performance but also Meryl Streep's a few weeks earlier. They are both fine actresses. In fact, Streep may be among the best in the last century. I'm a decent public speaker but a horrible actor. Acting is hard. That is why I'm surprised by the almost amateurish overacting both displayed. Judd seemed relaxed but Streep was almost breathless; as if she was uncomfortable with her words.

The colorful speeches combined with the p---yhats are, no doubt, an appropriate appetizer for the main course they will be cooking up in the years to come.

The world had been going down the wrong path for too long, so eventually the old order would give way.

Yeah, that was basically Hitler's selling point, too.

Every successful/ powerful political leader acts like hitler..

And even if that were true, do you think that's the way it should be?

It's a HUMAN limitation.. there's no inherent EVIL to these people.. that's just the only way humans can claw to the top of other humans..

The insatiable drive (appetite) for power, to the point of sickness..

Think about how many people are in your path... Only a certain type of humans with that certain pathology can truly get ahead..

You're completely evading the question. Do you think the world should be ruled by people who, as you mentioned, are so sick with the lust for power that the only thing that matters to them is their own advancement? By people who will use minorities as scapegoats to further their agenda, and those who suppress political opposition to create a fascist dictatorship state?

I gave my answer.. You chose to not comprehend it.. hahahaha

Tp4 believes the world should be ran on a large mainframe, Only machines can make the objective decisions we need based on big-data.

As for the Humans.. My answer to that was simply, There is NO OTHER WAY to organize humans besides this pyramidal model of servitude..

In the human system, you're slaving one processor to merely an equally capable processor.. The only thing holding all this together is this veil of money/power which says, processor 1 came after processor 0, therefore do what processor 0 says..

And let me guess, we can no longer afford to let communists sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids, either? :p

I don't sound that crazy... we've had the matrix for years.. hahahahahahha

Did anyone else catch Ashley Judd's recitation at the Women's event last week?

I should first say that I like to be gross at times.I love gross jokes; what can I say, I'm a guy. I must say however that Ashley Judd was able to do something that decades of foul mouthed comedians and worldly sailors couldn't. Her speech made me feel like puking. In her defense, she brought awareness to the fact that tampons are taxable ( I will gladly support the effort to make them tax exempt), but anything else that she was trying to say was lost in a vulgar stream of profane and hateful imagery. I know that Trump is partially to blame for lowering the bar of public discourse but just like it is inexcusable for Trump, so is it for anyone. I fear that men born straight will seek alternatives to women after hearing her graphic descriptions! I can only hope that the women cheering her on will be surprised and a little ashamed when they read a transcript of what she actually said.

On another note, I am also perplexed by not only her performance but also Meryl Streep's a few weeks earlier. They are both fine actresses. In fact, Streep may be among the best in the last century. I'm a decent public speaker but a horrible actor. Acting is hard. That is why I'm surprised by the almost amateurish overacting both displayed. Judd seemed relaxed but Streep was almost breathless; as if she was uncomfortable with her words.

The colorful speeches combined with the p---yhats are, no doubt, an appropriate appetizer for the main course they will be cooking up in the years to come.

Maybe it's not over acting, but how they really feel? After all, in neither case were they acting, so classifying it in the same vein as that seems... strange.

I think the content is irrelevant as long as the delivery is good. but her performance is what made it awful

I say that because no matter what you say.. VERY generally, people want the same things.. so however you say something, in the end, intentions and goals are the same.. IN THAT way, content is never unique..

You can say... Tampon tampon tampon.. in the end, people get it, you want equal rights for women.. you could say, you want equal rights for women, or tampon tampon tampon..

So.. there's no real difference in content and intention... the context (womens rights event) is good enough.. People already inherently know what they're about to hear before going to the event.

Now, have someone pretty with a smooth voice say it, and it works fine..

The delivery ultimately determines whether the message resonates with the audience..

I’m not as nasty as Confederate flags being tattooed across my city. Maybe the South actually is going to rise again. Maybe for some it never really fell.

Blacks are still in shackles and graves, just for being black. Slavery has been reinterpreted as the prison system in front of people who see melanin as animal skin.

I am not as nasty as a swastika painted on a pride flag, and I didn’t know devils could be resurrected but I feel Hitler in these streets. A mustache traded for a toupee. Nazis’ renamed the Cabinet Electoral Conversion Therapy, the new gas chambers shaming the gay out of America, turning rainbows into suicide notes.

I am not as nasty as using little girls like Pokeman before their bodies have even developed.

I am not as nasty as your daughter being your favorite sex symbol, like your wet dreams infused with your own genes. But – yeah, I’m a nasty woman – a loud, vulgar, proud woman.

I am not nasty like the combo of Trump and Pence being served up to me in my voting booth.

I’m nasty like the battles my grandmothers fought to get me into that voting booth.

I’m nasty like the fight for wage equality. Scarlett Johansson, why were the female actors paid less than half of what the male actors earned last year.

See, even when we do go into higher paying jobs our wages are still cut with blades sharpened by testosterone. Why is the work of a black woman and a hispanic woman worth only 63 and 54 cents of a white man’s privileged daughter? This is not a feminist myth. THIS IS INEQUALITY. So we are not here to be debunked. We are here to be respected. We are here to be nasty.

I’m nasty like my bloodstains on my bed sheets. We don’t actually choose if and when to have our periods. Believe me if we could some of us would. We do not like throwing away our favorite pairs of underpants. Tell me, why are pads and tampax still (Ooo that was a brand name) why are tampons and pads still taxed when Viagra and Rogaine are not? Is your erection really more than protecting the sacred messy part of my womanhood? Is the bloodstain on my jeans more embarrassing than the thinning of your hair?

I know it is hard to look at your own entitlement and privilege. You may be afraid of the truth.

I am unafraid to be honest.

It may sound petty bringing up a few extra cents.

It adds up to the pile of change I have yet to see in my country.

I can’t see. My eyes are too busy praying to my feet hoping you don’t mistake eye contact for wanting physical contact. Half my life – I have been zipping up my smile hoping you don’t think I want to unzip your jeans.